TSA Limits Lithium Batteries on Airplanes

yali writes "The U.S. Transportation and Security Administration has issued new rules limiting travel with lithium batteries. As of January 1, no spare lithium batteries are allowed in checked luggage. Batteries carried in the cabin are subject to limitations on per-battery and total lithium content, and spare batteries must have the terminals covered. If you're returning home from the holidays with new toys, be sure to check out the new restrictions before you pack."

Comments

awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[BWJones]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry. I assume this is to reduce the possibility of a lithium battery shorting out, but if the batteries are contained in their shipping packages, they should be no more dangerous than many other items that you can carry on planes. This of course means a whole new hassle for those folks that use lithium batteries for their work such as photographers who need to travel by air to many of their assignments among many other folks and carry with them batteries to sometimes remote locations. What is the rationale? Have they examined the potential impact before coming up with yet another new restriction on travel? Are they worried about this as a terrorist act? Because, look, if someone really wants to bring down a plane, there are many ways to do it even without using lithium batteries. Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory. Think any common item on a plane that can be used as a weapon including newspaper, components of the interior finish and cabin materials,

Every time I come back into my own country after spending time abroad, I am frustrated and depressed over how bad things are getting here. I talked about some of it including the marketing problem we are manufacturing for ourselves here after my last trip to Japan.

It also makes one wonder how much all this is costing the US in terms of lost business, lost productivity, airline delays, increased cost burdens on airlines and passengers and more... And this is all being done in the name of safety and terrorism, but you know... it's funny because I remember flying back in the 70's and 80's where people routinely carried firearms on planes. The restriction was that they had to be long guns and unloaded. I even remember one Texan getting on a plane and commenting to his friend that he would never check his shotgun because it might get damaged by the baggage handlers. I also routinely used to carry a pocket knife with me wherever I went even up to a few years ago on planes before they were outlawed... which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Bootle]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory. Keister stashed? Slashdot, you teach me something new every single day!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[__aaclcg7560]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

Obviously, they don't want terrorists buying black market Sony batteries that will explode during the flight.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? So that lithium battery companies can have their stock prices jump when the batteries are being thrown out at the airport and rebought at the destination. Just like the beverage items that have to be thrown out so you can rebuy it on the other side of the security gate.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

And that makes me wonder what the risk of hijacking would be if carrying guns was allowed (even encouraged?) on airplanes. I'd love to see a terrorist managing to take control of a plane for more than 5 minutes if other passengers had guns.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[pheared]

It's obviously just a scheme by the electronics industry to sell more devices, since you can carry more batteries so long as they are installed.

I have to admit that while this is stupid, it's really not as bad as the TSA restrictions that actually make flying a complete nightmare. I don't think you need to get too upset over this one. I'd take weird lithium battery restrictions over draconian liquid restrictions any day. TSA is probably going to make me pee before I get on my next flight because I am transporting more than 3oz. of liquid and in the wrong kind of container.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Pensacola Tiger]

What else do you expect from the Department of Homeland Insanity?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mrchaotica]

What is the rationale?

Obviously, it's a conspiracy by Amtrak and Greyhound!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Harmonious Botch]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry? It is ok with me if you kill a hijacker, but I don't want you putting holes in the plane.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mr_mischief]

When you outlaw common everyday items on planes, only forgetful people and outlaws will try to board the plane with those items.

Given that a good laptop battery or a high-quality pocket knife can approach the price of a cheap off-season weekend ticket on a discount airline, just ditching your stuff looks pretty unappealing. It's a pain to leave the security screening, go back to the luggage check, check your stuff in your carry-on, and then get screened by security again. I'm not sure all airports will even let you do that.

It'd be nice if there was a way to combined baggage check and security so that knives, lighters, and other such things normally carried in pockets could be checked straight from your pockets into your checked luggage. Even a good reminder system to get fewer people forgetting to check those items in their checked bags would be nice.

The lithium battery limit in the checked bags makes this situation even more of a hassle. I guess soon people buying large quantities of laptop batteries will need to register with the government just like farmers with anhydrous ammonia and pseudoephidrine purchasers do in problem meth states,

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[SoupGuru]

Maybe we should be taking notes from the gun nut lobby and do a 180 on how to deal with terrorism in the skies. After all, an armed cabin is a polite cabin.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Starteck81]

In all fairness lithium is a highly reactive substance. You could conceivably take a number of batteries on a flight head back to the restroom crack them open and construct and incendiary device. Check out this link for a little more info The Preparatory Manual of Black Powder and Pyrotechnics

Granted the laptop batteries aren't lithium nitride but they are close.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Roogna]

Figures the one time I don't have mod points is the one time I see a post by someone who obviously didn't read the actual links. Lithium batteries are NOT "now illegal to carry". There's just some rules being put in place for when they can be in checked baggage or must be carried on, and how they must be stored. Looking at the actual page on the subject, it looks like they went to great lengths to make sure it won't directly impact most travelers with regards to the batteries people tend to travel with. On that note I see nothing anywhere suggesting that this has anything to do with terrorism. And as you say if it's "to reduce the possibility of a lithium battery shorting out" then they can be in their shipping packages and be "no more dangerous than many other items that you can carry on planes". Which is exactly what they suggest for storing spare batteries.

I'm all for government conspiracy theories and thinking most of this stuff is completely idiotic. But nothing is going to improve if we go around making grossly inaccurate statements about what a rule actually is.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[LWATCDR]

I doubt this has much to do with terrorism and everything to do with safety.
A lithium battery in checked luggage that shorts out could be a major disaster. Take a look at what happened when some oxygen generators where not shipped properly.

If a fire happens in the passenger cabin it will be noticed and hopefully put out quickly. One in the luggage hold could be a bigger problem.
When I think about just how battery/energy crazy we are getting I have to wonder if it really is a good idea.
I have a six gigabyte memory card in my cellphone. When my wife and I travel we have two notebooks, two Nintendo DS's, two cell phones, an iPod video, and at least one digital camera!
I wonder just how many batteries are being made a year these days?

Frankly these rules are a lot more logical than the restrictions on screwdrivers, nail files, nail clippers, and pocketknives.
BTW great pictures on your blog.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Harmonious Botch]

I recall a rather nasty home-defense weapon that a friend of mine had for his wife to use ( they were in a rather rural area with slow police response ). It was a short-barrel .44 revolver - light, easy to use, won't jam - with a load that looked like a miniature shotgun shell. It had a bunch of pellets about 1 mm in diameter. He said that it could rip a person apart at close range, but could not penetrate 2 sheets of drywall.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[smooth wombat]

head back to the restroom crack them open and construct and incendiary device.

And you can't do the same thing with sodium and water or a hundred other items that can be brought on board?

I said it in a previous posting, but soon, the only way to get onto a plane will be like this.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[elrous0]

As long as it increases my false sense of security with a token effort aimed at the appearance of security, with no substance, I'm okay with it. I'm all for doing whatever it takes to defeat Osama Bin Laden and his gang of music pirates in Iraq.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Glaser rounds.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Starteck81]

I won't argue that the rule is dumb just that it is possible to use them to make an explosive. You and I both know that a quick trip to the supermarket you could purchase all the chemicals you need to make an explosive device. The truth is that unless you completely restrain everyone or sedate them there is alway going to be a risk that someone will sneak something on a plane and use it to hijack the plane.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[jedidiah]

Don't believe everything you see in movies.

Putting a few bullet holes in the outer skin of the aircraft won't be as exciting as Hollywood makes it out to be.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Jeremi]

After all, an armed cabin is a polite cabin.

... until the first accidental discharge (oops, forgot to engage the safety!). Then it's a bloodbath.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ptbarnett]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

The AP article linked in the summary explains why:

The Federal Aviation Administration has found that fire-protection systems in the cargo hold of passenger planes can't put out fires sparked in lithium batteries.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[hughk]

Seen at London City airport in London by security - a vending machine selling pre-stamped mailers and a post collection point. Such a small thing to organise but how many passengers feel happier not having to 'lose' stuff at security.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Marful]

Um... all that will do is piss of a person, or kill, maybe a rat or a snake...

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[wizardforce]

And that makes me wonder what the risk of hijacking would be if carrying guns was allowed (even encouraged?) on airplanes.

about the same as successfully robbing a packed gun stor I suppose. I just dont know how safe it would be to hand weapons over to people crammed in a tin can surrounded by a good number of annoying people forced to sit together for *hours* on end.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[that this is not und]

I see it as an opportunity for somebody to sell 'this device blinks a silly little LED if button pressed' devices for people to 'install' their spare battery packs in before going to the airport. Little nominal 'shell' devices that just happen to fit the same battery packs as the flier's other device.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[willyhill]

which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

After 9/11 the chances of someone actually falling for a hijacker with a box cutter is right around zero. Security could have been maintained as it was before the attacks, at the same cost, preventing small arms from getting on board as always, and we'd all be OK. But if you routinely ban things like shoes, water and pocket knifes, it gives the impression that you're "protecting" people, and thus validating those enormous expenditures. Everybody wins, except those of us who actually have to travel.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[blueg3]

Inconveniently, the TSA follows the principle that telling you exactly why they're not allowed poses some level of danger. This is security through obscurity, and from a theoretical security standpoint, is crap. The kind of physical security they do, though, is much more statistical than exact, so their obscurity is actually useful.

I've dealt with similar situations before. Some of their incomprehensible rules were actually the result of careful analysis. Without the reasoning, the rules seem nonsensical, but they're not about to explain the reasoning. It gets them little (just popularity) and reduces security. Unfortunately, this means you can't tell the difference between rules that are the result of careful analysis and ones that aren't. Both real and wannabe pundits will of course assume all rules are the latter.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ckaminski]

Me... my kabar mule has got me in trouble several times, the case blends into the strap on my backpack. I finally had to surrender it at Logan as I didn't have a car I could go stash it in, and Logan doesn't seem to have ANY mail facility whatsoever.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

We knew that you would eventually get it in the end.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[bryanp]

I'm going to guess that if that were the case 9/11 might have looked something like this:

http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Have Blue]

Easily. They'd just shoot you while you're struggling to drag your gun case out of the overhead compartment.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Rob the Bold]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry?

OK, we'll only allow "Ich luge" bullets.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106]

Well, if you had a gun, would you shoot anyone that annoys you? Perhaps you would just be annoyed, yet not murder anyone. If you wouldn't, there's a good chance other people won't either. Honestly, do you think that large numbers of people aren't murdered everyday simply because most aren't carrying? Or are most people just not going to kill someone over something stupid. Peole get mad, yes, but the person that would actually kill when pissed is rare.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[LWATCDR]

Just how would you get Sodium on to an airliner?
Every time I have seen Sodium it was stored under kerosene or some other oil.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn]

Well, at least you could be sure that the airline wouldn't pull stuff like keeping people in the plane while it's on the tarmac for hours.

The trick to keep annoying people from getting shot would be to have multiple armed people - unless there's a real reason to use a weapon, you don't want to go waving it around because the other carriers would shoot you.

Heck, I once proposed something much like this.

'NRA Airlines, 10% discount for open carry'. They'd have to use stairs to load the plane like in many less developed areas that don't have gated terminals, but you wouldn't have to worry about the plane being hijacked, and the security check would consist of a retired bomb dog.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[smooth wombat]

Just how would you get Sodium on to an airliner?

Put it in an empty tube of toothpaste, a small bottle used for lotion, a remanufactured film container (not the plastic container but the metal one the film comes in) and a whole bunch of other places.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Tony Hoyle]

Maybe not but there aint a lot of air pressure at 20,000 feet... it's not like you'd just go 'oh there's a hole in the plane'... you'd be too busy fighting over the oxygen masks.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn]

1 mm pellets wouldn't do much, but there is a revolver handgun caliber which can have chambers compatible with .410 shotgun loads.

At close range it'd do more than piss off a person.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[hughk]

I once sent back my Swiss army knife (really glad not to lose it). The mailer cost me £3 (=$6). I guess the airport was making something off it, but it left me a happy customer. The security guys were actually quite nice about it as well. I've travelled a bit (US, Europe, Africa & Asia) since 9/11 but haven't seen anyone else doing anything similar. The closest is left luggage but that means leaving the security queue.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106]

Of course we can have security people check the safety and allow people to board...

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn]

It's a pain to leave the security screening, go back to the luggage check, check your stuff in your carry-on, and then get screened by security again. I'm not sure all airports will even let you do that.

Except that, per the article, Lithium batteries are expressly forbidden in check-in baggage. So you'd be screwed either way.

Makes me wish for an airline not subject to TSA stupidity.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106]

Wouldn't a better solution be an air-tight box in which to store said batteries?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[geekoid]

As long as the ammo doesn't put a whole a foot across, you'll be fine.

The maximum air flow or a normal bullet hole would mean that the rate of 'decompression' is barely noticeable.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn]

Keep the firearms in their holsters unless a problem requiring their withdrawal comes up.

Honestly, for airline carry I wouldn't object to restricting it to individuals who have CCW permits, that avoids most of the truly bad, and even Air Marshals aren't 100%(they seem to like leaving their firearms in bathrooms).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[AshtangiMan]

I don't know how rare . . . maybe with guns but not with cars. I walk/bike exclusively and at least once per week am confronted with angry drivers who speed up and swerve towards me. Now, they are counting on not hitting me, but are acting in a way that removes any tolerance for error. So if I trip, or swerve, then I'm dead. People who are frustrated and or angry are capable of doing almost anything. And the US is becoming a country full of people who are frustrated and or angry.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

My point exactly, I have no idea why I've even been modded Funny! Same applies to mass shootings by the way, if say one out of ten persons would carry a handgun at all times I don't see how a mass shooting could go very far. Yay, thanks for all the gun control laws people, now when a nutter wants to get famous he can just go to the nearest gun-free school zone and be sure to find no civilian resistance to prevent him from setting a new record!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[vijayiyer]

The airplane's compressors have enough reserve capacity to pressurize the plane even with a small hole in the skin. There would be air blowing out through the hole, but that's about it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[LWATCDR]

"Put it in an empty tube of toothpaste, a small bottle used for lotion, a remanufactured film container (not the plastic container but the metal one the film comes in) and a whole bunch of other places."

All of which will be put through an X-Ray machine. You may get away with it but I doubt it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[deathy_epl ccs]

Um... all that will do is piss of a person, or kill, maybe a rat or a snake...

Maybe so, but when twenty of them are pointed in your face, you'll think twice about that hijacking plot you were planning on participating in.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[rbanffy]

"...or *sedate* them..."

That would give a whole new meaning to flying your destination.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[R3d M3rcury]

You'd have to make sure that the weapons that are carried by passengers are not going to damage the airplane. It wouldn't do much good if, in the process of battling it out with the hijackers, the armed passenger shoots out a window or in some way creates a situation where the airplane crashes.

Also, you probably would want to stop serving any alcohol on the airplane. Stories involving alcohol and convenient access to firearms tend to end badly.

Considering the restrictions (special weapons, ammunition, and training), I'm not sure you'd see too many people doing it, even if it were allowed.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[tieTYT]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory.

This gives a whole new meaning to the term "Stink Bomb".

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

Easily. They'd just shoot you while you're struggling to drag your gun case out of the overhead compartment.

Yeah, because everybody knows that people who carry guns for protection like to leave them in their luggage rather than under their belts/inside a holster.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Simon (S2)]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

When they make new laws they never say "why". The law does not say it is illegal to kill someone because that may hurt the feelings of his parents or stuff like that. Laws say what you can't do. Stop.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106]

I walk/bike exclusively and at least once per week am confronted with angry drivers who speed up and swerve towards me. Now, they are counting on not hitting me, but are acting in a way that removes any tolerance for error. So if I trip, or swerve, then I'm dead.

Are you sure they're not speeding up to get AROUND you, and not attempting to hit you? I find allowing bikes onto roadways a stupid idea. I have to ask.. how is anyone in a position to hit you when walking though? I'd expect you would be on a side walk, and obeying the cross signals. Well... that's what I do expect, but pedestrians rarely seem to do so. I've never sped up to hit one though.

People who are frustrated and or angry are capable of doing almost anything.

So if someone frustrates / pisses you off, I can expect you would kill them?

And the US is becoming a country full of people who are frustrated and or angry.

Agreed.. I think that has to do with problems which are not being solved, because our government is focusing on issues like batteries, which have not yet caused an issue..

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[religious freak]

You're assuming the terrorist is rational, but they are not always rational. If you put guns on every airplane, they would kill as many people as possible before being "martyred". Or try to bring down the entire plane with a few well placed shots.

But I think the odds of hijackings have actually DRAMATICALLY decreased since 9/11. Prior to 9/11, if there was a hijacking, I would've let hijackers do whatever, in the hopes to stay alive. Now, it's me or them. Period. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who is aware of this fact (read: other passengers & potential hijackers).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

omg heather, i wish i had mod points!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[networkBoy]

0) get permission to place your business at security checkpoints (???)
1) Set up a kiosk at large airports immediately next to the security checkpoint.
2) Sell postage paid USPS flat rate boxes for $20.00
3) profit!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[calidoscope]

A lithium battery in checked luggage that shorts out could be a major disaster. Take a look at what happened when some oxygen generators where not shipped properly.

Good point wrt the oxygen generators.

I seem to recall that the rules on shipping Li batteries via airfreight were due to an incident on an air cargo plane. I presume the flaming laptop pictures were also on the minds of the group that drafted the new regs. The Li-phosphate batteries are probably a lot safer, but it may take a while for that info to wind its way through the TSA.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[BirdDoggy]

You're talking about the Taurus Judge. Chambers .410 shotshell and .45 Colt. Touted as a vehicle defense weapon.
http://www.taurususa.com/whatsnew/revolvers.cfm

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me wonder whether a plane with roughly 50 bullet holes in it will fly.

Well, there'll have to be at least 1 FPS player on board, won't there?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless a road is designed with both bicycles and cars in mind, allowing bikes on it actually increases congestion and overall CO2 emissions than banning bikes entirely due to drivers jammed up and forced to merge into lanes.

Not to mention the fact that most bicyclists refuse to obey basic traffic laws (such as stopping at lights or stopsigns), laws that will be definitely enforced should a motorist or a motorcycle driver follow suit.

The problem is that most US cities care little about urban planning long term, but how to get businesses who are proposing to move in the best incentives to come. Traffic planning and planning for bike routes is far secondary to this.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Zeinfeld]

My point exactly, I have no idea why I've even been modded Funny! Same applies to mass shootings by the way, if say one out of ten persons would carry a handgun at all times I don't see how a mass shooting could go very far.

You mean that if the US looked more like Iraq the number of shootings would go down?

Rawlpindi is a garisson city. No shortage of arms there. Yet the suicide bomber still managed to kill rather more than any US spree shooter.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[H310iSe]

If there was some indication that security restrictions were helpful I'd feel a LOT better about them but like you and other posters have said they seem so random. How, for example, is your typical TSA securoon going to know if my LiIon batter is 6 or 9 cells? Why is 1 9 cell battery ok and 2 3 cell batteries not allowed?

All we need to do is go by the Israel standard. If they do it on el al isreal then we do it, the same way, same training 4 personnel, etc. Seriously, they've been stopping much more focused terrorists for way longer and they do things quite differently.

Last point - there are tons of things you can buy behind the security checkpoints - I've seen metal letter openers, long very sharp hat pins and other things that are way more dangerous than some of the things they've taken out of my bag.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mea37]

Funny, I tend to think that allowing motorized vehicles under the control of minimally-trained individuals onto the roads was a mistake.

If you really believe motorists are just trying to get around bikes, you haven't seen what's really going on. Unless and until there's a separate bike trail infrastructure, any discussion of restricting bikes from the roads is unreasonable. But those points are both off the topic.

The question was about how people behave, and the current situation (bikes sharing the road with cars) is a perfect example of how people, out of anger whether specific or general, will put others' lives at risk when they have no right to do so. They may not be first-degree murderers, but they're perfectly willing to become manslaughterers.

The same will hold true for guns on planes.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[lostguru]

yes i would shoot them, in the foot

theres a difference between shooting somebody and killing them

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ehrichweiss]

If it's a Glaser round, it has a 95% chance of killing anyone it strikes, even if you were to hit them in the hand or other extremities because the damage that it does to flesh is enough to cause one to bleed to death easily.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I don't know about anyone else, but after the hassle of getting to the airport and getting through the security line, and getting the additional security checks, which involve large ugly men cupping my balls, then having a screw driver and my batteries confiscated, and then having to walk a mile through the air port terminal to my gate, and then crammed onto an air planes tiny little seats with a screaming baby and smug barbie doll flight attendents and then you want to give me a gun?

Does not seem prudent.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Cairnarvon]

And then the first time a foreign-looking person gets up to go the bathroom, he'll be shot by a nervous redneck who assumes he must be a terrorist.

The fact that this "an armed society is a polite society" meme is still around would be hilarious if it weren't so frightening.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

The weapon you are referring to is The Judge manufactured by Taurus. It fires .45 rounds as well as .410 2-1/2" shot rounds (a common round that is used in place of a 12 gauge, usually found in a long gun). http://www.taurususa.com/products/gunselector-results.cfm?series=41

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ChameleonDave]

It's funny because I remember flying back in the 70's and 80's where people routinely carried firearms on planes. The restriction was that they had to be long guns and unloaded. I even remember one Texan getting on a plane and commenting to his friend that he would never check his shotgun because it might get damaged by the baggage handlers. I also routinely used to carry a pocket knife with me wherever I went even up to a few years ago on planes before they were outlawed... which leads me to wonder if the per capita risk of hijacking is any different now versus what it was back then.

Around 2000, I used to carry a small penknife all the time. One day, I was catching a plane from the UK to Spain, and going through the checks. I studied the sign in front of me, which listed the things not allowed in the cabin. It mentioned drugs, volatile substances and suchlike, but said nothing about sharp objects. I continued, secure in the knowledge that everything I was carrying was OK. When it came to putting my metal objects in a box while I walked through the detector, the guy went weird about the penknife. I pointed out that it was permitted, and that if he really didn't want it in my possession during the trip, I was quite willing to let a crew member hang on to it until we got to the other end. He just told me that that wasn't possible, and that it would stay in the airport and later be sent on to me. I just wanted to catch the plane, so I said that I supposed that would have to do.

He also told me (almost trembling with officious vexation) that had I not been a UK citizen, he would have arrested me. I didn't bother arguing, but that seemed like a bizarre thing to say. You arrest someone if they commit a crime, and don't arrest them if they don't commit a crime. There ought not to be any discretion of the sort he wanted to exercise. I don't know what the charge would have been for this hypothetical arrest. Penknives are legal unless they have a flick-release, measure over four inches (11cm in Spain), or are wielded as a weapon (in the same way that a cricket bat becomes illegal if I swing it around threateningly). None of that applied. A few weeks later, I wrote to the e-mail address provided, in order to have my property returned to me, and I got a reply back saying that I'd have to send them £10 first. Since that was almost enough to buy the penknife new, I told them to keep it. It's quite a little extortion racket, especially as he only got my consent to leave my property in the airport because he failed to admit that money would be demanded for its return.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Peganthyrus]

You're too late, someone already filled this niche. Seriously.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[CohibaVancouver]

>you'd be too busy fighting over the oxygen masks.

The O2 masks only last for a few minutes anyway, which is plenty of time for the pilots to get the plane down below 12K feet. Heck, even when Aloha Airlines Flight 243 had its fuselage ripped open at 24K feet (and as a result a third of the masks were gone altogether) no one asphyxiated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Flight_243

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

>I'd expect you would be on a side walk,

That's illegal in many, if not most, municipalities. Especially urban areas.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Ice Wewe]

And that makes me wonder what the risk of hijacking would be if carrying guns was allowed (even encouraged?) on airplanes. I'd love to see a terrorist managing to take control of a plane for more than 5 minutes if other passengers had guns.

I have another original idea for dealing with a terrorist on a plane. First you give all the passengers flower leis that have been spray with a snake aphrodesiak. Then, put a crate of snakes in the hold set to release when the terrorist takes control of the plane. Then the snakes kill the-- what? it's already been done?!

Damn, better luck next time I guess..

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so fucking mad, if I had a gun, I'd shoot you for this post!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[TooMuchToDo]

As stupid as this may sound, get a pilot's license if you fly enough and have a cool employer. Otherwise, you're relegated to fly Grayhound in the sky.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[HardCase]

And that makes me wonder what the risk of hijacking would be if carrying guns was allowed (even encouraged?) on airplanes. I'd love to see a terrorist managing to take control of a plane for more than 5 minutes if other passengers had guns.

I think that I'd rather just see the air marshal and the pilots armed, thanks. The thought of being in the crossfire of a bunch of trigger-happy passengers is a little chilling to me.

And it isn't just planes. Think about your local shopping mall. I'd just as soon not have to deal with 20 wannabe enforcers who can't shoot straight when they're under pressure. If the police don't hit the bad guys with every round, imagine the carnage if a bunch of civilians started shooting. I've got a CCW, but I would have to be pretty damn sure of myself before I actually considered using my weapon in any area where there was a chance of hitting an innocent bystander.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I travel light these days, just me, the clothes on my back, and employer-required stuff. I buy what I need on arrival, and box it up and ship it back UPS when the trip's done. I return light like when I left. I tell Security their bosses have made things such a pain in the a** I decided to do without.

If it gets any worse, I'll find a job that doesn't require traveling-it's just not worth it anymore.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[TooMuchToDo]

Since when can x-ray machines determine chemical composition?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Pseudonym]

I know this subthread is in jest, but I feel like I should point this out anyway.

Anyone who has been on enough long-haul flights knows that emotions can run quite hot sometimes. My cousin used to be a flight attendant, and she told me that there's pretty much one on every flight. Usually, though, it doesn't boil over unless something goes wrong (e.g. flight is delayed).

If the ESR proposal on giving guns to passengers was ever actually tried, it wouldn't last more than a week. Yes, probably nobody would be killed, but someone would be seriously injured.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[monopole]

Pretty ridiculous for two reasons:
-Post 9/11 a highjacker has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving against 100-200 unarmed passengers who are convinced that they will die if they do not resist. Pre-9/11 the basic policy was negotiate with the hijacker demands. Now it's kill the mofo.

-Guns in a pressurized airframe are a recipe for disaster. Air marshals pack Glaser Safety Slugs for this reason. A gunfight with multiple people would probably lead to worse casualties than small bombs.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[rbanffy]

I don't believe anyone could sneak Sodium in any useful (read "dangerous") form into a plane.

The very way you have to pack it necessarily looks suspicious.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[BiggerIsBetter]

As long as it increases my false sense of security with a token effort aimed at the appearance of security, with no substance, I'm okay with it. I'm all for doing whatever it takes to defeat Osama Bin Laden and his gang of music pirates in Iraq. And yet somehow, that wasn't moderated funny. I weep for America. :-(

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[msaavedra]

the only way to get onto a plane will be like this.

Maybe they'll still let us onto the plane like this too.

(Warning: link may be considered NSFW).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Pseudonym]

Same applies to mass shootings by the way, if say one out of ten persons would carry a handgun at all times I don't see how a mass shooting could go very far.

Even if that were true, crime would just morph. Instead of mass shootings, there will be more school shootings, shootings in Amish communities, buildings blown up (a la Timothy McVeigh) and DC sniper clones. And more people would see it as a great way to commit suicide without having to bother to turn your own gun on yourself.

Besides, do you really think that the next schitzophrenic off their medication will pause and say "gee, gun ownership is at an all time high... I guess I won't go apeshit today"?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[kent_eh]

soon, the only way to get onto a plane will be like this.
Or like this, which I think I would prefer.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[lgw]

Your prejudice against other cultures should embarass you. Do you honestly believe that because someone is "a redneck" that he would shoot people at random? Yes, there are people that stupid from *all* cultures, but they are very rare.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory.

Wow, and I thought that Mexican food last week was rough....

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[swillden]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry? It is ok with me if you kill a hijacker, but I don't want you putting holes in the plane.

Air marshals don't carry special ammo, and there's no reason that others would need to, either. Air marshals did briefly flirt with frangible ammunition, but soon realized that the Hollywood idea of what happens when you poke a 1/2 inch hold in the skin of a plane is just as valid as the Hollywood notion of what happens when a bullet hits a car. Basically, if you poke a small hole in a pressurized airplane's skin the pressure begins to drop a tiny bit faster than it did before you poked a hole, and not likely fast enough to even overcome the systems that maintain the pressure.

As a result, air marshals now carry regular hollowpoint ammunition, just like pretty much all other law enforcement officers, on the grounds that it's (a) more effective at stopping the bad guy than ball, (b) less likely to go through the bad guy and hurt someone behind him than ball and (c) less likely to shatter ineffectually on a bone or other hard object than frangible. Frangible ammo sometimes produces horrific wounds similar to those of a shotgun at short range, but other times will impact a rib, or just about anything a little tougher than flesh and then produce a broad but extremely shallow and ultimately ineffective wound. And it really doesn't make shooting on an airplane any safer.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[sconeu]

Yeah, the 9/11 guys screwed things up for the "ordinary" political hijacker.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Makes me wish for an airline not subject to TSA stupidity. The
Stupid
Agency

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Pseudonym]

And it isn't just planes. Think about your local shopping mall. I'd just as soon not have to deal with 20 wannabe enforcers who can't shoot straight when they're under pressure.

Just so long as you don't arm cop-wannabe mall security guards. Really. You know what I mean.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[dorsey]

Those people might be rare, but they're not *that* rare. While I personally wouldn't shoot someone, I see enough examples in the news of people who do reach for a gun over distinctly minor disputes that I know it's a nontrivial risk. A couple of examples right off the top of my head; A woman who opened fire in a dispute with her husband over the setting on the thermostat, and a man who shot his mail-carrier because the mail was late.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

If the police don't hit the bad guys with every round, imagine the carnage if a bunch of civilians started shooting.

From here : "Another study examined newspaper reports of gun incidents in Missouri, involving police or civilians. In this study, civilians were successful in wounding, driving off, capturing criminals 83% of the time, compared with a 68% success rate for the police. Civilians intervening in crime were slightly less likely to be wounded than were police. Only 2% of shootings by civilians, but 11% of shootings by police, involved an innocent person mistakenly thought to be a criminal."

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I said it in a previous posting, but soon, the only way to get onto a plane will be like this. Ryan Air in the UK has taken the opposite approach.

And this is what the terrorists are really thinking.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[wattrlz]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory. Keister stashed? Slashdot, you teach me something new every single day! Somehow the idea of a terrorist trying to keister stash a significant quantity of sodium metal (which is not explosive so much as pyrophoric... ) signifcantly brightened my day.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[swillden]

yes i would shoot them, in the foot

And you'd go to jail for assault with a deadly weapon. Legally, the only difference between shooting someone in the foot and not killing them and shooting them in the chest and not killing them is that you can *probably* convince the DA/jury that it wasn't attempted homicide. Probably.

Not to mention the fact that it is possible to kill someone by shooting them in the foot, in which case you're looking at manslaughter or murder. "But I didn't mean for him to die!" isn't going to hold any water -- you deliberately used a deadly weapon on him.

If you really carry a gun, and you think about the implications of doing it, you quickly realize that the only case in which it makes sense to even draw your gun is when you're justified in shooting to kill.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

And more people would see it as a great way to commit suicide without having to bother to turn your own gun on yourself.

Really, then how come this happens so rarely in police stations, shooting ranges and military bases? I love how most anti-gun arguments are based on people's imagination-based theories rather than statistical or anecdotal evidence.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

There are liability issues when it comes with unconventional loads. Anything that can be deemed as cruel or meant to inflict injury above what is necessary for self defense can open you up to serious litigation. And the ones who get to deem what is and is not cruel? Civil court judge and lawyers. All bets are off on people being sane when someone is going to get paid a million bucks to sue you.

Generally it is best to avoid any kind of pellet/shot loads, also you absolutely must avoid hollow points. Plain old lead round nose or semi-jacketed soft points are less controversial in a court, from my understand (IANAL).

Technically speaking a good semi-jacket hollow point or those hydrashok JHP will be the best for actually stopping a baddie without going through walls. Personally I would go with a 357magnum over a 44mag for home defense, because the recoil is too severe for most of us to make a follow up shot worthwhile. if it's not going to hit the target, then no point in pulling the trigger. Now I can't do a double-tap with a 357 revolver, but I can hit the mark with a follow up shot in well under a second. (and I have very little practice)

And with a 9mm one can easily do a double-tap, although I wouldn't trust my life to a 9mm because all autopistols are jam-o-matics in my opinion. But I cannot deny that 9mm are effective and popular.

S&W sells a 5-shot revolver w/ 2" barrel that fires .500S&W (that's a half-inch diameter bullet). It's too much for carry, but home defense it would do well (of course like a 44, there will be no follow up shot). I think it is probably best for shooting a bear/lion/tiger when he starts eating your face though. It is a pretty serious cartridge, might even stop a rhino. (nobody has tried) I do recall some have used it effectively against moose though.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[lysse]

I dunno, much the same as the risk of another Columbine if pupils were allowed (even encouraged) to bring guns into school with them...?

It's a claustrophobia-promoting tin tube with no contact with the outside world, horrid recycled air, plastic food, and a whole bunch of people anaesthetising themselves against the horror of being there with a drug noted for promoting violent behaviour. What do you think would happen if weaponry were added to that equation? Sorry, but the risk of a hijacking conspiracy is one of those things you'll have to put up with on planes... unless you think that they should also not be permitted to fly more than 20 feet up to counter the risk of falling out of the sky (which, let's face it, is a much larger risk and a much more common occurrence).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mr_mischief]

I think I said something close to that.

"The lithium battery limit in the checked bags makes this situation even more of a hassle. I guess soon people buying large quantities of laptop batteries will need to register with the government just like farmers with anhydrous ammonia and pseudoephidrine purchasers do in problem meth states,"

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[blind monkey 3]

It could be a very effective method to scare people afraid of dying, what terrorist would want to start a gun fight 30,000 feet in the air when it would mean they will die? Terrorists would not think to get several people on the same flight, all carrying large calibre weapons - I mean, when was the last time you heard of several hijackers on the same plane? Even then, I've seen the movies, I bet I could kill them before they had a chance to shoot, these terrorists have got slow reflexes and are dumb.
if someone looks nervous, just blow him (the terrorist wouldn't be female) away, that way they won't have time to do any damage, if anyone reaches for their gun, shoot first, ask question later - that way the terrorists will know the U.S. means business.
There should also be a law that allows a peace loving man to shoot a "muzlem" on suspicion, they're easy to spot, if they did that to the "muzlems" on those flights on 9/11, we wouldn't have this problem, they all had those big beards and had those towels on their heads.
That brings me to another point, terrorists all have beards, if the Government had any balls they'd make it legal to shoot a bearded person on suspicion, bet that would teach them a lesson, no-one's gonna mess with the United States then. bunch of pussies these politicians, got no idea at all.
Sarcasm aside, bear in mind that the hijackings were done using box cutters, it was fear and surprise that assisted the terrorists, if they tried the same thing again, it would not work as people would overcome them. If they could carry "serious" weapons on board, they are already resigned to death, you are not, it would not be one person, it would not be a group sitting together, they would be very happy to have several people shooting, you might worry about the type of ammunition you would use - in case of damaging the plane, I would expect the terrorist would be equally worried to pick ammunition for maximum damage. regardless of whether the plane can withstand the damage, having 10 -20 people shooting in a confined space would please the terrorists.
That said, it is giving me immense enjoyment trying to guess what will be banned next over there, we should have a competition, guess the next dangerous weapon of mass destruction outlawed on a plane and win a "home-defence system". You have my profound sympathies, I know there's a saying you deserve the government you voted for, but NO-ONE deserves what you people are putting up with these last few years. Let's hope for a better time in 2008 for you guys.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

he'll be shot by a nervous redneck who assumes he must be a terrorist.

Do you realise how racist against people from the American south this is? What you said implies that people over there are typically trigger happy racists with a low IQ. That's nothing short of racist.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[sterno]

Yeah it'd be really funny until some drunk passenger that had missed several flights and was in a truly foul mood whipped out his .38 and started taking out flight attendants. Yeah thanks, pack your guns in your checked bags.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[wattrlz]

Try to cut down on the hand signals. I've noticed a certian few of those can be very effective at increasing the anger/frustration of nearby motorists.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

after the hassle of getting to the airport and getting through the security line, and getting the additional security checks, which involve large ugly men cupping my balls, then having a screw driver and my batteries confiscated, and then having to walk a mile through the air port terminal to my gate, and then crammed onto an air planes tiny little seats with a screaming baby and smug barbie doll flight attendents and then you want to give me a gun?

Yes. Solves the security check problem. Potential weapons other than explosive devices wouldn't be checked for anymore, that means security would be only about looking for bombs, not maces/knives/scissors/box cutters and so on. Two birds, one stone.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

Rawlpindi is a garisson city. No shortage of arms there. Yet the suicide bomber still managed to kill rather more than any US spree shooter.

People carrying guns help solve the problem of criminality, doesn't help preventing suicide bombings and doesn't help curing cancer.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The War on Americans by their Government Continues! No End in Sight!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I bet Goldfinger isn't even fat enough to make his own mark on the tracking radar, either!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[t0rkm3]

Take charter flights. Either hired by yourself or your employer.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118705417794296758.html

Or get a pilot's license and rent an aircraft.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

You're assuming the terrorist is rational

Indeed, terrorists are rational to the extent that they'll do just what it takes to achieve their goal, even if being willing to achieve that goal might seem irrational. Besides, you put a lot of confidence in what passengers are able to do. What happened to the 9/11 flight that crashed in Pennsylvania shows that even if the passengers are determined to prevent the hijackers from reaching their goal, it doesn't mean they can do as much as they could using fire power.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to let the few smokers left on the Planet know, lighters are not allowed in checked luggage anymore. They are however allowed on plane as carry-on, but only one per person. My wife carries my spare.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

So basically, you're saying that it's OK that hijackings can happen because unrelated types of airplane crashes happen more often, but that we cannot allow people to have guns on-board to prevent these hijackings, because of the unfounded idea that there's a chance that someone might go crazy with his gun, despite the fact that it is less likely to happen than hijackings?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

if it was easy to put normal pocket items in your checked luggage then the tsa guys wouldn't get all the freebies they are entitled too

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

Yeah it'd be really funny until some drunk passenger that had missed several flights and was in a truly foul mood whipped out his .38 and started taking out flight attendants.

Exactly, because people in the real world (ie outside of your bedroom) start shooting random people whenever they're drunk and pissed off despite knowing that other people around them have guns. This type of shit happens every day!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[treeves]

X-ray blocking (which shows up as opacity) is proportional to the atomic weight and density of the stuff.
e.g. lead, atomic weight 207, is much better at blocking x-rays than sodium, atomic weight 23. And sodium is harder to distinguish from organic material (C, H, N, O: all /= 16) than lead is, but it is distinguishable.
And having a toothpaste tube with a chunk of higher density material inside it is certainly going to raise suspicion, don't you think?
Finally, sodium, and the hydrogen generated when it contacts water, is not going give much of a bang. You'd make a mess, maybe burn somebody, but you wouldn't bring a plane down with it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[treeves]

That was supposed to be "[less than or equal to] 16".

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

And through some admittedly unscientific testing (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm), the Judge did not put up impressive figures for effectiveness when shooting shotshells or slugs.

I had a point, but I forgot what it was. :)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[hedwards]

I suppose this wouldn't be /. if you had read TFA, but it stated that the fire suppression system in the baggage compartment is insufficient to prevent the fires from the batteries.

Presumably it is even worse in the passenger compartment, where the oxygen content is much higher. The reason why they're allowed at all in the carry ons is that they can be checked to make sure that the batteries are being carried in an appropriate manner with both leads covered.

I hardly think that it is unreasonable for the TSA to protect us against things like that, it has after all been there job all along, even if it weren't them, somebody would have to do it.

No photographer worth his salt is carrying the types of batteries that are being banned from flights. I tried the non-rechargeable batteries a number of years ago, and they sucked. The li-ion rechargeables are both more useful and more safe. Having a special circuit that should prevent them from burning up the way that the other ones would.

So, why don't you take your conspiracy theories to the annual society of the wearers of tin foil hats convention. I hear it's going to be in Bermuda this year.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[smittyoneeach]

Nay, if the target be Americans, 'tis a rear end of size to make a Buick blush, made mobile by nothing less than the latest SUV.
The fact that the End did eclipse the sun may have deceived you as to its awesome visibility, sir.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Ogemaniac]

Just wait until if and when airlines start allowing phone calls (cell or internet-based) on flights.

There will be blood drawn over this one.

I can imagine few horrors worse than being trapped next to a yapper for hours.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[evought]

My point exactly, I have no idea why I've even been modded Funny! Same applies to mass shootings by the way, if say one out of ten persons would carry a handgun at all times I don't see how a mass shooting could go very far.

You mean that if the US looked more like Iraq the number of shootings would go down?

Rawlpindi is a garisson city. No shortage of arms there. Yet the suicide bomber still managed to kill rather more than any US spree shooter.

That is certainly true, but one wonders if any measures would make a difference in a situation with that much conflict and unrest. A society has to have respect for rule of law and general civility. In that case, some number of citizens carrying arms allows people to help each other given that it is physically impossible for police to be everywhere or prevent everything. That did not arrive at my school until well after the shooting was over.

In the Wild West, it was not the presence of guns which cause problems, but the lack of law, including the fact that criminals were not (consistently) punished after the fact and the law itself was as likely to be the criminal.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[cgenman]

Unfortunately, that rare person who would kill when pissed has a significant impact upon the lives of everyone else who is sane. If it's only one in a thousand people, you've still got a 50% chance of bumping into one on a full 747.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[xSauronx]

If it wont damage 2 sheets of drywall, it may not be worth a damn. Check out Box #3 http://www.theboxotruth.com/index.htm After testing rounds theres some talk of birdshot, that wont penetrate 2 sheets of sheetrock...and a tale that follows about someone shot by birdshot, and it didnt stop him, which is a pretty important thing to keep in mind if youre going to shoot someone and dont want them to hurt you.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[TooMuchToDo]

I'm just saying that whenever the TSA decides to test themselves and send through decoys, almost all the time they get through. If screeners can't detect decoys and pull them out, I doubt they'll notice a toothpaste roll filled with the wrong substance based on x-rays alone.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[fredklein]

There are liability issues when it comes with unconventional loads. Anything that can be deemed as cruel or meant to inflict injury above what is necessary for self defense can open you up to serious litigation

This a result of the pussy-ification of the American Legal System. Actually, it's the pussy-ification of America.

When I was young, I climbed metal monkey-bars in a sand-covered park. I climbed 6', even 8' high slides made of steel and sheet metal, and slid down them. Today, all the fixtures are low to the ground, plactic, and the ground itself is padded. All because our society (thru the Legal System) won't stand up and say "Too Bad." "It's too bad your kid got hurt when he attempted to run up the slide while you were not supervising him. You should have 1)taught himthe right way to use a slide, and 2) been watching him."

Now we just award the mommy a few million dollars, and the kid learns he can run wild with no consequences.

More on topic- If someone is trying to hijack a plane, quite possibly to kill everyone on board and cause Billions in damage (not to mention the whole 'terror' angle), then it's quite justified in causing them a little pain. This Society has Rules. A criminal, by breaking those Rules, has clearly shown their preference to not have those rules apply to them. But, the Rules go both ways- they regulate how an individual is supposed to act toward everyone else, AND how everyone else is supposed to act toward a given individual. By wanting the Rules to not apply to them, criminals have given up their protection By the Rules. (You want to cheat? Fine- but you can't complain if others cheat back.)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

Holy jesus, did McCarthy, Schumer or Feinstein give you that statistic?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=237381 shows testing of a Glaser round; shooting it into ballistics gel shows that this "super-deadly round" penetrates less than a regular ball or hollowpoint round, when fired directly into the block. When fired through two walls, it actually penetrates more, which is completely counter to the Glaser marketing, and barely fragments, which makes it slightly less effective as a normal ball round fired from the same gun.

Lets not make up statistics.

Any bullet moving fast is dangerous, whether it fragments or not, whether it makes a small wound, or a hole you could toss a cat through. However, a bullet is minimally dangerous to an aircraft when compared to a bad guy intent on crashing it/ blowing it up / taking it somewhere its not supposed to go. Unless, of course, its a lithium-powered rechargeable bullet.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[CohibaVancouver]

I bet Goldfinger isn't even fat enough to make his own mark on the tracking radar, either!

Ever noticed the continuity error in that sequence?

First we see the crew of the plane all tied up in a hangar and wriggling, trying to loosen their bonds. In the next cut to the hangar Felix and co. find the crew (before rushing to the control tower to watch Goldfinger's mark on the tracking radar), and they're all unconscious. Seems the whole crew wriggled themselves into unconsciousness.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Kadin2048]

Erm, I'd like to see a source on that. Even if you blew somebody's hand off, I still doubt that you'd have 95% chance of killing them. You don't need to be a brain surgeon to put on a tourniquet.

That said, Glaser Safety Slugs are pretty good ammo, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them for home defense if you want to use a handgun (my first recommendation would be a shotgun for most people, though).

But this whole argument is a bit silly -- the idea that firing a handgun into an airplane window will cause the entire thing to explode out and decompress the cabin is pure Hollywood. You could punch several bullet-sized holes in a modern airliner without a catastrophic pressure decrease, certainly without any sort of structural failure because of the air movement. According to one pilot, you could blow out several whole windows and still maintain pressure.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Chris Colohan]

One example of why you might be concerned about lithium batteries:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3690260570423705609

This video shows what happens if you overcharge or damage a Lithium Polymer battery as is commonly used in R/C planes and helicopters.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[value_added]

Around 2000, I used to carry a small penknife all the time.

Be glad it wasn't a swiss army knife. The bottle opener, screwdriver and toothpick extensions might have justified multiple counts of carrying a concealed weapon.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Zeinfeld]

People carrying guns help solve the problem of criminality,

Not unless they are law abiding. Non law abiding people carrying guns increases the problem of criminality.

Its like one of those anti-spam peer to peer filtering schemes which work perfectly provided that you have no spammers or agenda pushers moderating the messages. As soon as you allow for the fact that there are bad people in the world you need to be much more careful about who you empower.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[jeff4747]

Really, then how come this happens so rarely in police stations, shooting ranges and military bases?

What makes you think it's rare?

If you're only judging the rarity based on news coverage, then you're going to have massively skewed results. The big events that kill lots of civilians get hours of nationwide coverage. The small events, when the MPs or police shoot one guy waving a gun and he's the only one injured, get about 20 seconds of local TV coverage.

Plus the police and MPs are likely to subdue and disarm you if they're the only ones threatened. If you REALLY wanna commit suicide-by-cop, you've got to be threatening a civilian for "best results".

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[cnettel]

You don't see any sampling problems in the very definition of the situations where civilians intervene, versus police?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[sterno]

1) People who are pissed off and drunk are more likely to shoot somebody than one who is happy and sober
2) Airplanes have a much higher concentration of pissed off and drunk people than most locations

In the real world people do get drunk and angry and pull out guns and kill people.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

Go with a hollowpoint load. If it comes to it, you are using something that the (insert law enforcement agency) have tested and use, and you trust their judgement to find something effective. And you can claim as much in court. (IANAL either, but the people in (insert law enforcement agency) had access to them when they made their decision.)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[geminidomino]

Walking on the sidewalk is illegal?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[cnettel]

They detect metal quite well. Reactive sodium is generally in the metal state. It's not like you can create a fire with salt, salt is what you get when you put the fire out.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[religious freak]

I certainly agree with your point. These guys certainly are not raving loons that can't tie their shoes. The general consensus (I'm speaking of the society at large) seems to be they are unsophisticated "cowards". I'd say they are neither, and any attempt on our part to convince ourselves of this point (as Bush has just done with Bhutto assassination) is ultimately going to hurt only ourselves. We cannot underestimate our enemy.

However, they are "irrational" in that they may not mind if they die a horrible death at 30,000 feet if they can score a few propaganda points in the process. So the odds of a terrorist (or likely a collection of terrorists) taking that firearm onto a plane to randomly murder are very high. 5 or 6 dudes taking out half a plane before anyone realizes what's going on is a great way to get attention. Sure, they'll die in the process, but living life is not their #1 objective anyway.

In any event, this is all academic because it'll never happen.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[swillden]

Generally it is best to avoid any kind of pellet/shot loads, also you absolutely must avoid hollow points. Plain old lead round nose or semi-jacketed soft points are less controversial in a court, from my understand (IANAL).

My concealed firearm permit instructor suggested that the best thing you can do is to find out what ammunition your local police department shoots, and use that. Even if they chose something with exceptionally nasty effects (unlikely), a jury is probably not going to fault you for following their lead.

That said, the magazine in my home defense weapon is loaded with Glaser safety slugs, a "slug" that basically contains a pellet load. The reason I load those is because I want to make sure I don't hurt my neighbors, and a local attorney who specializes in firearms issues agrees that that is a very defensible position.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[rujholla]

SHEESH RTFA

They are not prevented from carrying them as carryon, only as checked baggage. They are doing it because the onboard firefighting systems in the cargo compartments cannot put out a lithium fire.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[guruevi]

It doesn't matter that you have holes in your plane, just land as soon as possible and/or go to a lower altitude. The plane won't explode or implode because of a minor hole (unless you're blowing a whole side out using a sawed-off shotgun).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[kwandar]

"It also makes one wonder how much all this is costing the US in terms of lost business"

That is a very astute comment. I'm Canadian and have avoided going to the US since 2001, simply because the hassles aren't worth it, and it has only gotten worse over the years. I've run into a surprising number of other Canadians and other nationalities who, like myself, are actively avoiding travel to or through the US.

I don't know what it has cost the US, but if I and the people I've met are an indication (and they now seem to be in the majority), it is probably in the billions. The former bastion of freedom is now viewed as the bastion of inconvenience, inconsistency and intolerance. Unfortunately, the terrorists have been winning the minds (if not the hearts) of the US citizenry.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

Sure, just like airplanes were butchers shops when knives were allowed on planes prior to 9/11. Man, I'm glad those days are over! Oh, and the way heavy traffic is like Death Race 2000, what with all the people in a high stress environment with massive pieces of mechanized steel at their disposal. I don't know how I get home every night!

I fly a lot as well (at least 3 or 4 trips a month, domestically and more recently, international long haul flights, and I've never seen, or heard an unruly passenger, let alone one who flies into a murderous rage. Once, an Arab guy complained that he was going to miss his connection in Dubai, though.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

You don't see any sampling problems in the very definition of the situations where civilians intervene, versus police?

If you follow the link and look at what's written right after what I quoted, it explains that the difference is due to the fact that civilians only act when they think it's a good idea, as the police always has to. Nonetheless it supports my point that when civilians act it doesn't have to turn into a carnage. People around here (Slashdot) just under-estimate the intelligence and sanity of the general population.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[4D6963]

Plus the police and MPs are likely to subdue and disarm you if they're the only ones threatened.

Wrong, soon as you shoot, it's on, and by that I mean they're free to kill you. If you shoot more or less towards a cop, you're dead meat.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

No, he wont decide not to go ape shit. But someone is more likely to be around to STOP him before he runs out of targets.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[jcnnghm]

You arrest someone if they commit a crime, and don't arrest them if they don't commit a crime. There ought not to be any discretion of the sort he wanted to exercise. I wouldn't say that. Some discretion is definitely advisable. For example, last night I was outside of a bar a little after last call, and a guy picked up a bag of trash and threw it at another guy getting it everywhere. A cop saw this happen. He could have charged the guy with littering, public intoxication, and maybe even assault. Instead, the cop walked over and made the guy pick up all the trash with his bare hands, throw it away, and apologize. In my eyes, this accomplished several things. One, it severely embarrassed the guy, who will in all likelihood avoid doing something like that again. Two, it rectified the situation, there was no longer any real harm done, other than to the guys ego. Three, the guy now doesn't have to get a lawyer and spend about $1,000 on legal fees for a stupid mistake.

The officer was able to handle the situation right then and there, instead of wasting a bunch of resources prosecuting a guy for having a bit too much to drink and doing something stupid. The guy definitely broke the law, but I think that the officers response was fair, while not being overbearing. I would hope in the future that more police officers would use some discretion and judgment and handle things appropriately. His solution to the problem was much more sane than tazing the guy and dragging him off to jail.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

i'd promote training, but then, I promote training every chance I get. No special weapons or ammo necessary (see above posts). pretty much all ammo is unlikely to cause castastrophic damage, though I won't rule it out. The math in my head still says that a small chance of something significant happening while defending a plane beats letting bad guys gain control and do what they like. (For example, Flight 93 could have ended better, of course, but the heroes there did prevent further loss of life in a populated area)

Good call on the banning alchohol though. I'm for it, but I don't drink anyway. I doubt that would happen. Only thing I can think of is a rule/law preventing sale of alcohol to those who have declared that they have a firearm on them, and enforcement by way of breathalyzers.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Bicycling. RTFPost.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Idarubicin]

And that makes me wonder what the risk of hijacking would be if carrying guns was allowed (even encouraged?) on airplanes.

Hm. Leaving aside for the moment that a substantial fraction of hijackings don't currently lead to fatalities (an outcome that would practically be guaranteed under your proposal), there are the 'unintended consequences'.

How would airlines or the FAA feel about having highly flammable and/or explosive gunpowders in the passenger cabin? An electrical fault above your luggage bin might start cooking off a clip of ammo rather than just singeing your carry-on. The ammunition would be dangerous to evacuating passengers, rescue personnel, and firefighters in the event of a (nominally) survivable crash that was accompanied by fire.

In a confined space with hundreds of people, is it wise to have frightened, twitchy amateurs handling firearms?

If you thought the Virginia Tech guy got a lot of press, think about the next nutjob who decides he wants a flashy suicide-by-plane. Walking down the aisle with his trusty, TSA-approved semiauto, how many people will he shoot before someone manages to return fire? (Will they return fire accurately?) Will the extra press attention appeal to a certain type of psychotic mind?

What do you do about the hijacker who decides to put some ballistic armor in his carry-on? Kevlar vests don't look like anything special on a baggage x-ray.

For the terrorist who just wants to bring down the plane and doesn't care about killing himself to do it, his gun and clip(s) provide him with a handy place to store his plastic explosive or conceal other nasty things in a difficult-to-xray way.

In other words, a heavily-armed flight might be less likely to be a victim of a successful hijacking--but you'd trade that risk for a whole bunch of more serious ones.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[plague3106]

Your comment is interesting, since in the past five years here, there were zero bike / car accidents resulting in fatality.

It is interesting to note that people stick up for bikers "rights" on the road. Funny because cars may run red lights JUST after they turn red, but almost EVERY biker I've seen runs the light well AFTER the cross traffic has started moving.. and the bikers get pissed when they're honked at.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

wait... what? you're saying that a gun fight where small holes might be put in an airframe that the air compressor could probably compensate for, would be WORSE than a small bomb? (And Glasers are just good marketing; if you actually READ your wikipedia link, you'll see that FAMs don't use Glasers anymore.)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[RodgerDodger]

There have been four recorded incidents of hijacking for the purposes of crashing the plane (and killing everyone on board) - all in the 9/11 2001 attack. There have been numerous incidents of hijacking for the purpose of using the passengers as hostages.

In the majority of hostage scenarios, the majority of passengers get away safely.

Now consider what would happen if there were a couple of dozen armed passengers (not law enforcement officials) on a plane. First, the hijackers would be well aware of the preponderance of armed travellers. So, when they act as a group, probably the first thing they will do is take several hostages immediately - probably women and children. These hostages would be used human-shield. The hostages would also be physically separated on the plane. There's also a good chance that the hijackers would have smuggled explosives on board, with a dead-man switch. (Hey, if you can get ammo on board, you can get explosives)

The hijackers would quickly move to secure the cockpit - those nice modern armoured doors are great, but how likely is it that the captain will hold up if the hijackers threaten to kill a child? Especially if they make it clear that they don't intend to crash the plane (e.g. by letting the captain fly the plane to the destination, or even radioing for help)?

Now, in the middle of all this, some macho idiot is going to pull his concealed pop-shooter and try to take out the few hijackers he can see. Odds are it's going to be a solo action, or at best poorly coordinated. The hijackers, who would have moved to establish clear fields of fire in the first few seconds, are going to shoot to kill anyone making a sudden move. So the first guy to do this is, at best, going to be a diversion at the cost of his life.

Maybe this triggers a dozen or so other passengers to take action. The resulting fire-fight would leave the dozen or so other passengers dead, with a few hijackers taken down. They'd probably also kill a number of bystanders. Way to go, guys.

All this, of course, assumes that there is no serious damage done to the plane in all this. Yes, a bullet isn't going to blow a large hole in the side of the plane. But it could rupture the hydraulics, or control lines, or the fuel tank, or hit the turbine engines. Not likely, but sure as hell possible.

Remember: most terrorist groups are reasonably well-trained, and very dedicated. They aren't stupid, and don't attempt missions that have no chance of success. All putting lots of guns on a plane is going to do is get people killed in the event of a hijacking.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[goaliemn]

I'm assuming you skipped reading the article.. there was a cargo fire in Philly that may have been caused by some lithium batteries that were being shipped, and the on-board systems can't put out lithium fires..

Besides, the limits listed at the dot website doesn't seem like it would impact many people.. you can carry spare camera batteries and laptop batteries, just not dozens of them.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[dangitman]

Of course, one would expect trouble trying to bring a drug mule onto a flight.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

It also makes one wonder how much all this is costing the US in terms of lost business, lost productivity, airline delays, increased cost burdens on airlines and passengers and more.

Many of my clients find doing business easier in europe.. it's not just the silly rules, the intimidating border procedures - it's the whole fucking experience. It's a lot friendlier in the EU. Border guards smile at you.

Guess where they're doing business?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[SacredByte]

"...( they were in a rather rural area with slow police response )...He said that it could rip a person apart at close range.."

Not to mention small game animals - esp. poisonious snakes...

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Clete2]

This is a completely ridiculous regulation! Here is what I constantly carry with me:

One 9-cell battery for my Dell Inspiron (installed in the laptop).
Three Nikon EN-EL4 Li-ion batteries. One is installed into my D2H and two are spares.
One small Li-ion battery in my cell phone.

So what do I have to do when I fly on Jan 10th? Mail the EN-EL4s to myself? That is completely ridiculous! These batteries run for $130-$150 a piece!

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony being if you mail it to your destination - it could be travelling in the hold of your flight anyway - usps mail is carried in plane holds and not screened.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[swb]

There are liability issues when it comes with unconventional loads. Anything that can be deemed as cruel or meant to inflict injury above what is necessary for self defense can open you up to serious litigation. And the ones who get to deem what is and is not cruel? Civil court judge and lawyers. All bets are off on people being sane when someone is going to get paid a million bucks to sue you. Ahh, that's BS. Dead is dead, you can't inflict injury beyond that, and from a criminal perspective it doesn't really matter how you inflict deadly force, its how it is justified (self-defense, generally).

In terms of civil liability, you could be sued for wrongful death, but I don't think there's any way you could lose a wrongful death suit if you were never charged or won a criminal case based on self-defense. In many cases there are specific grants of immunity from civil liability for some uses of deadly force or situations (eg, defense of dwelling or when a victim of a crime).

Its certainly possible to imagine a less common solution where "self-defense" arises as the result of some rogue behavior and the plaintiff's attorney attempts to demonize the self-defense claimant because of their rogue behavior, bad character, drug use, etc, but the type of ammo they used isn't likely to sway a jury in and of itself, even in a borderline situation.

This comes up whenever the topic of using handloads in self-defense weapons comes up. Some claim it increases liability because someone will claim you tried to make "super bullets", but it doesn't make any sense either technically (there's *always* a more powerful gun/cartridge that is NORMALLY more powerful than any one hot-rodded round) nor logically, since dead is dead -- I can't hurt you more than dead.

As far as I know, nobody has ever been able to show an actual court cases where someone received a (increased) punishment based on the lethality or origin of their ammo. If you had the right to kill, it doesn't matter if it was a .25 Auto or a .600 Nitro Express.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[A nonymous Coward]

You are flat out WRONG about the age of commercial airliners. I don't know where you'd get the actual age stats, but if MOST of the airliners were 30 years old, they'd all be obsolete. Even the AVERAGE age is no where near 30 years.

Now if you want to lump in private planes, you might be right. But commercial airliners, not a chance.

As for your worries about bullets exploding airliners due to decompression, everything I have read from writers who have the cred to back it up says you are wrong there too. I include in this the air marshalls who ride planes anonymously. Considering how wrong you are on the age of airliners, I am going to assume for starters on explosive decompression that your are also pulling that "fact" out of your ass.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Phanatic1a]

That said, the magazine in my home defense weapon is loaded with Glaser safety slugs, a "slug" that basically contains a pellet load.

Yeah, good luck with that. The tiny birdshot in the cup of a Glaser will produce a wide, shallow wound cavity that has no physiological reason whatsoever to disable an attacker. The way you stop people with bullets is by either a) penetrating vital organs and making them stop working or b) causing massive exsanguination. Glasers can't reliably penetrate enough to be counted on doing either; they can't reach organs, or major blood vessels. So your attacker will be left with a wide, bloody wound that will only stop him the same way pepper spray would stop him: by discouraging him, not by actually rendering him incapable of continuing. There are cases of Glasers being ineffective on people wearing heavy winter clothing. I would never rely on such a round in a self-defense situation.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Omeger]

1mm shot wouldn't penetrate cheesepaper, much less a human being. Please refer to rocksalt.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ceoyoyo]

Just enough to put some holes in a few of your fellow passengers though.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Omeger]

I highly doubt that. Legal precedent has shown that regardless of the round you use, you are likely not held to be liable just because of the round used. S&W (or Winchester or somebody) made a highly mushrooming round called Black Talon that ended up getting them sued because of its exagerated claims by the media. The second time they were sued though the pussies that sued them were thrown on their asses by the judge because the judge ruled that the makers of the round were not falsley advertising the bullet and it was working as intended, to KILL PEOPLE. Bullets are made to kill things, suing someone saying that they used a bullet on you that was designed to kill you is like suing the sun because it shines.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

there is quite a few comments up thread on how small holes in the skin of a plane are not likely to cause catastrophic failure, irrespective of what hollywood shows.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[maz2331]

So... if my .458 Magnum elephant gun is the closest thing available, and I grab that instead of the .22 that is three rooms away I can be sued?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Alpha830RulZ]

Technically, I don't think it's accurate to term this a 'racist' smear. Rednecks come in many races and ethnicities. It's really more of a descriptor, like 'Bush Republican' or 'thoughtless fool'.

Having more than a bit of experience with rednecks, I don't find them to be much more prejudiced than the average big city liberal. They're just more open about it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

Mythbusters debunked this. They simulated the pressure difference and fired bullets through the skin of an old airliner. Nothing happened. Explosive decompression from bullet holes is a myth.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lost Engineer]

I seriously wish Mythbusters would put a hole in an airliner just to prove you (ok not you, but other people too) wrong. I realize I am stating this without proof, but logic should indicate that a tiny little hole will not lead to a catastrophic failure, regardless of how many feet above see level you happen to be. Except in space. There, you can suck a whole alien through a tiny hole in a the craft, or so I hear.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[zippthorne]

The plane already has plenty of holes in it. Some are necessary for you to breathe. It can survive quite handily more than a few shots from any caliber weapon you would be able to carry in a shoulder holster. Of course, you don't want to hit the pilot, or critical hydraulics lines, but even a lucky shot from a .22 caliber pistol can damage those systems for sufficient values of "luck."

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Pseudonym]

I knew someone would reply to the last sentence and completely ignore the rest of it. In retrospect, I should have just left that last flippant comment out.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Pseudonym]

Sure, just like airplanes were butchers shops when knives were allowed on planes prior to 9/11.

Have larger knives (e.g. hunting knives) ever been allowed on planes?

I'm glad that you've never met an unruly passenger, but I suspect you don't interact with most passengers on typical flights, like a flight attendant does. (Yes, the "one on every flight" remark was hyperbole.) Most difficult passengers just have bad attitudes, but there are plenty who get verbally abusive.

What people don't seem to get is that the presence of firearms escalates a tricky situation into a deadly one. I'd rather that not happen in a metal tube at 32,000 feet where I have no opportunity to escape.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ColdWetDog]

Exactly, because people in the real world (ie outside of your bedroom) start shooting random people whenever they're drunk and pissed off despite knowing that other people around them have guns. This type of shit happens every day!

Perhaps not every day, but you have just successfully described your typical Friday / Saturday evening in any big city Emergency Room. We don't call them "knife and gun clubs" for nothing.

Really, this idea of random armed passengers is pretty insane - even for a slashdot discussion. I live in rural Alaska, people carry guns all of the time. I carry a gun (some of the time when I'm motivated to pack around the monster). Carrying a gun is pain in the ass. You have to be VERY careful, very cognizant of your surroundings and the weapon. It's a big responsibility.

Come on, just let the Air Marshals have them. Sit back and enjoy your flight. Have a snack (or not).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Pseudonym]

Bingo. This is (quite literally) an arms race, and nobody wins those.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ColdWetDog]

I agree with you completely -- but it might make an interesting FPS game.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[rasputin465]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry

No, because disclosing that information would only embolden the terrorists.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[alshithead]

"And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry. I assume this is to reduce the possibility of a lithium battery shorting out, but if the batteries are contained in their shipping packages, they should be no more dangerous than many other items that you can carry on planes."

They are also talking about rechargeable laptop batteries. I know that the spare batteries I have for my laptops could hold enough plastic explosive to open up an airplane in flight. TSA doesn't explain a lot of their rules. Doing so might cause panic or give someone a tangent idea that TSA hasn't thought of yet. Having previously worked a block from the White House, I always wondered how the bike couriers kept their freedom of movement. You could certainly pack a bike frame with enough plastic explosive to cause grave damage and plenty of important folks stopped at the Starbucks at 1700 Penn. Just park your bike, walk down the block, and wait with remote until a good target stopped. The two or three SUV's filled with folks with automatic weapons certainly wouldn't do any good in that case.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Molochi]

Small pellets are only ineffective if they are allowed to spread from the barrel of a gun. However if you confine the spread to an entry wound (glaser/magsafe) the effect can be quite effective. Admittedly, penetration is not ideal compared to a good hollow point round like a 10mm Norma Black Talon, but it's a sensible compromise if you want to stop an attacker and minimize the chance of a stray shot killing a neighbor in an adjoining apartment.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[lewko]

I seriously wish Mythbusters would put a hole in an airliner just to prove you (ok not you, but other people too) wrong.

They did.

Myth busted.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[dvdeug]

It's not true that there have been only four hijackings for the purpose of killing everyone on board. A Fed-Ex flight was almost hijacked by a ride-along pilot and crashed so his family would get insurance money. Samuel Byck in 1972 tried to hijack a plane to try and crash it into White House, and Algerian hijackers took Air France Flight 8969 in 1994 and are believed to have been planning to use it as a flying bomb.

Another disputable claim is that most hijackings are done by well-trained terrorist groups. A lot of them are done by solitary idiots and looneys; a notorious disaster was caused when an African plane was hijacked and the hijackers refused to understand that it didn't have the fuel to take them to Australia.

More importantly, while guns would be a bad thing, even with no guns, I doubt many hijackers will be successful any more. Oh yes, Mr. Hijacker, I trust you that you aren't just going to kill us all. But you know, I would trust you a lot more after we kept you out of the cockpit and we broke a few bones of yours for good measure. You've got a bomb; even if you're telling the truth, why should we trust you not to use it?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

My stepfather had two weapons for home-defense (in a rural area... like 40 miles from a major store, and 10 miles from pavement). The first, that he slept next to, was a 12g riot shotgun (though really it was a breaching gun, except those are illegal ;) ) with buckshot/slugs in alternating rounds. It had a light of some sort that was attached to it with a toggle on the butt. Horribly inaccurate, but it would certainly make a point.

The second, the one that always worried me, was my mother's 45 cal handgun. She was entirely too small to use it, and not a terribly good shot. That thing would just piss someone off if it didn't kill them.

My point being, for home defense you want something for a range of 10-12 feet in near darkness/low-light conditions. Return fire isn't really a consideration (this isn't a spy movie), and unless you're taking Waco, you really will only have one or two B&E types to contend with. Not heavily armed/armored skilled opponents. A handgun IMHO is a terrible choice. You need something with just enough choke to not blow off your own feet that won't damage your house too badly.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[geminidomino]

I did. One might suggest you try.

how is anyone in a position to hit youwhen walking though? I'd expect you would be on a side walk,

How's that foot taste, AC?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[roman_mir]

I'd use Fe3O4 + Al for a nice thermite mixture and a piece of sodium to ignite the stuff.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[toddestan]

And having a toothpaste tube with a chunk of higher density material inside it is certainly going to raise suspicion, don't you think?

Just pack it next to a bottle of water as a decoy. You'll have about a 95% chance they'll spot the harmless bottle of water, confiscate it, and totally ignore the toothpaste in the process.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mpe]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry

Other than a vague reference to a fire on board a cargo plane. Many pasenger aircraft also carry commercial cargo, especially when there arn't that many passengers on the flight.
Thus the real issue here appears to be related to cargo AFAIK there have been no fires related batteries brought on board by passengers or crew.

What is the rationale?

The rationale is probably along the lines of "2007 has been a slow year for both real attacks on aircraft or government/press backed conspiracy theories. So we'd better come up with something to keep our budget!"

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[rts008]

"If it's a Glaser round, it has a 95% chance of NOT killing anyone it strikes..."
There, fixed that for you.

From my own experience from the Glaser Safety Slug's beginnings (and MANY clones back then), I call BS.
As an added bonus:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slugs and as mentioned, the Federal Air Marshall Service have switched to semi-auto weapons with a potent jacket hollowpoint bullet, having deemed the Glasers a mistake.

Glasers only cause surface wounds the vast majority of the time...often enough the person getting shot with them gets 'flight or fight' reflexes going, the adrenaline pumping, and a strong desire to do the shooter in, often succeeding.

Now about that Liberty Revolver:
IF .410 shotgun rounds with #2, #1, or #0 shot can be found, then the rounds can be opened, pumped full of epoxy, then reclosed, you might have an effective airline weapon-provided it gives you multiple shots.(the ranges in an airliner are short enough for this to work, IMO-provided you can get a minimum of halfway)

Before you throw hyperbole and conjecture at me, yes, I HAVE been there and done that..and threw the worn out tee-shirt away years ago.
I have four(4-count them!) bullet holes in me from two (2) years of run-ins with the East German Stasi (1979 and 1980)...three (3) were from nine (9) millimeter rounds, and one (1) from a thirty (30) caliber AK-47 variant assault rifle. (yeah, those of you that have 'been there' can deride me for forgetting to duck, the rest...STFU!)

Point being:
If penetrating (able to reach in and touch something vital) rounds just pissed me off enough to kill the shooters, what retribution would I have caused from a mere surface wound that just caused pain, but no real damage? Hah! I can tell you!

Having a plate glass window storefront blown in on me (with lots of glass shrapnel), and ending up with 237 stitches afterwards (I had to do the sutures myself as I was also the primary team field surgeon, and my back-up was standing guard at the head of the alleyway-with the team gunner holding his M-60 in assault carry while acting as my surgery 'nurse/assistant'), the retribution was extreme- we killed 48 that night...I was PISSED, and the team leader! ;)

So before you pass on crap info, check your facts, and do some research if you have no real experience with the subject matter. Just passing along something you may have heard or imagined does not help when you may be counting on the info with your life.

But then again, maybe your life has no value- it's up to you to decide, not up to me 'cause I really don't give a rat's ass...I worry about me and my own first.

P.S. Yes, I was being sarcastic with the numbers (#'s) earlier- just wanted to make sure you 'got it'.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[arcade]

It sucks.

Some of us travel light, with no checked baggage and only the stuff we need in a carry-on. Waiting for luggage usually means waiting for 20minutes more at the airport, adding to traveling time. *sigh*.

I hate this stuff.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mpe]

Can we put some restrictions on the ammo that you can carry? It is ok with me if you kill a hijacker, but I don't want you putting holes in the plane.

Maybe if you live in "Hollywood Land". Neat bullet holes in planes are not a big problem (except to the airline), it takes a lot of holes before loss of cabin pressure is any kind of issue. If anything any kind of "special ammo" (or restricted powder charge) may possibly cause more damage to the plane.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[TavisJohn]

The MythBusters did that already!
They shot a gun through the window, then the hull. The plain was fine! It took an explosive charge blowing the window out to cause the plain to rip apart.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mpe]

I seriously wish Mythbusters would put a hole in an airliner just to prove you (ok not you, but other people too) wrong.

They already have, it was in episode 10...

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mpe]

Basically, if you poke a small hole in a pressurized airplane's skin the pressure begins to drop a tiny bit faster than it did before you poked a hole,

Also since the result of a bullet is a neat circular hole there is little chance of the hole enlarging.

and not likely fast enough to even overcome the systems that maintain the pressure.

A bullet hole is tiny compared with the effects of a faulty door seal. It's also rather smaller than the outflow valve(s).

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[whoisjoe]

Is you sayin I can't kill someone for callin me mum a slag?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mpe]

Putting a few bullet holes in the outer skin of the aircraft won't be as exciting as Hollywood makes it out to be.

Actually it could be quite "exciting" for rather different reasons. More a long the lines of getting a free demonstration of how quickly an aircraft can land.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[mpe]

The airplane's compressors have enough reserve capacity to pressurize the plane even with a small hole in the skin. There would be air blowing out through the hole, but that's about it.

Aircraft already tend to have lots of tiny holes in both the skin and the rear preassure bulkhead. Made by these things called rivets. Building an aircraft which was totally airtight would only increase the price.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[JimBobJoe]

but logic should indicate that a tiny little hole will not lead to a catastrophic failure

You know when you're in an airplane bathroom, and you use the sink, in order to drain the sink you have to press a button which opens the drain and you hear a "wooshing" sound?

Aircraft lavatory sinks drain directly to the outside of the aircraft. There is a heater along the tube that connects the drain to the outside to make sure the water doesn't freeze at the end and create a block of ice (but it has happened before.)

Clearly, you could open all the lavatory sink drains wide open with little change to the cabin pressure.

(Obviously toilet water is kept in a tank and emptied at the airport. When blue ice falls it's because a valve has become stuck in the wrong way on the outside of the jet.)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

It is one thing when you're in the protective shell of a car vs being on a bicycle. In Chicago, which is fairly bike friendly, before lights the bike lane disappears for the right turn lane. It also doesn't appear again for the same amount of distance due to left hand turn lanes on the other side of the street. So theres a good enough chunk of time for me to get back into the bike lane. If I can get a head start when theres no traffic going across the street I'm going, red light be damned, and I'm safer for it.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

The Geneva Convention doesn't allow novel ammunition, including hollow points. Except through a loophole of when it improves the aerodynamics of the bullet. This legal platform has been brought up before in cases, and was even used in an episode of Law & Order (I think). Doesn't make it right or sane.

But you're right, cops throughout the world are standardizing on hollow points. They do well, but I still think they penetrate more than is ideal. I'd like to see some sort of frangible ammo suitable for home defense, I think I'd rather get sued for using novel ammo than sued for hitting a bystander in a freak accident.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

I agree with you. In fact I would argue that you would be better off using pepper spray for home defense in that case, in jurisdictions where it is legal. They sell this foaming bear spray that shoots like 10 yards and has a laser pointer on it so you can blast your target right in the face.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

Ahh, that's BS. Dead is dead, you can't inflict injury beyond that, and from a criminal perspective it doesn't really matter how you inflict deadly force, its how it is justified (self-defense, generally). There are already plenty of high profile cases where multiple shots to kill an attacker was considered "excessive force". The legal system is insane, and it's best you cover your ass from the lunatics.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

Well I live in California. So a scenario of getting sued for defending myself is likely. I think if all I had was a machine gun handy, I would try to hide the machine gun from the perp and hope the ambulance finds me before I bleed out. Beats some criminal's family raiding my accounts. There goes the retirement money, the house money, college money. poof.

It used to be that you could get out of paying out but a fraction on these civil cases. but times have changed, and greedy people with dirt bag lawyers will run you through the wringer.

The safest option is to just get shot. Maybe wear a vest, until Feinstien makes it illegal. (big brother knows best)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[scatters]

I think that hollow point rounds are prohibited by the Hague convention, rather than the Geneva convention, but even so, both of these agreements govern behaviour during declared war. So, you couldn't use a JHP round on an enemy soldier, but it's totally legal to use on a hijacker.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[ChameleonDave]

You arrest someone if they commit a crime, and don't arrest them if they don't commit a crime. There ought not to be any discretion of the sort he wanted to exercise. I wouldn't say that. Some discretion is definitely advisable. I anticipated a comment like that, so that's why I said "of the sort he wanted to exercise". He was threatening to arrest me when I hadn't done anything.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

Thank you for the correction.

A lawyer will stand in court and say that your ammo is illegal for the military to use in a war due to such and such convention. And then cite some bogus reasons of it being bad for whatever reason. We're talking civil court here. All they have to do is make you look like a bad guy to take all your money.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Fordiman]

Heh. I'd just use a glass-capsuled cesium suppository. No bathroom break needed; just sit down hard enough, and blam, half the plane is gone.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[tarogue]

From TFA:
The Federal Aviation Administration has found that fire-protection systems in the cargo hold of passenger planes can't put out fires sparked in lithium batteries.

And you can still carry-on spare batteries, you just can't check them.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

Frangible ammo has a lessened chance of richoceting; it can still overprenetrate. A credible instructor (Clint Smith) showed me a target holder that had been hit by frangible .30-06. There was a .30" hole through 2mm of steel. Its been demonstrated many times that JHP rounds have less risk of overpenetration, and a proven higher effecitveness in stopping a threat, which is why police agencies use them.

Hollowpoint is perfectly fine for self defense; any defense lawyer will argue that you're not subject to military law. Plus, the US isn't a signatory to the Hague convention of 1899, though we do honor it. (http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html )

As civilians, you have very similar requirements as police, when selecting your round; if anything, you require more performance, because you have no backup, no body armor. Selecting something that a law enforcement agency uses is probably a good call, from a tactical view, and from a legal defense view afterward. (again, IANAL.)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

OK, fair enough:

Even if that were true, crime would just morph. Instead of mass shootings, there will be more school shootings, shootings in Amish communities, buildings blown up (a la Timothy McVeigh) and DC sniper clones. And more people would see it as a great way to commit suicide without having to bother to turn your own gun on yourself. More school shootings - theres a similar debate about whether teachers should be allowed to be armed, if they so choose. I believe they should be allowed to, and then the GP post would apply to school shootings. (Or, alternatively, security guards should be allowed to be armed.). And in colleges, I think students who are legally allowed to carry elsewhere, should be allowed to carry on campus. If they aren't, then the campus police need to be armed, and much more reactive, with a greater presence.

When you get into buildings blown up, and snipers, you're shifting the argument, and I don't think crimes will morph the way you say they will. Someone who is dissuaded from raping a woman, or mugging that guy guy walking home from work, or holding up that 7-11, is not going to blow up a building, or snipe someone instead.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Dripdry]

I guess the sun would sort of shine out of his ass, then, huh?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[LWATCDR]

Well since you will have a nice block of metal inside a toothpaste tube I think it will show up. Plus the limits on the size of things like toothpaste allowed on board all kind of works against this.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Lt.Hawkins]

So, to restate:
If there were no bad people, everyone could be armed for self defense.

But since there are bad people, we can't allow people to be armed for self defense.

Lets be clear: Non-law-abiding people increase the problem of criminality, precisely because they are non-law abiding people. Whether they have guns or not, they are still non-law-abiding people. So what you say is technically true, that a non-law-abiding person carrying a gun increases the problem of criminality, but only because they are a subset of those who are non-law-abiding anyway.

If a non-law-abiding person were to threaten you with a shank, or a baseball bat, or 3 friends its still non-law-abiding behavior.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Anonymous Coward]

How DARE you dismisrespect the War Of Terror on Americans.... I mean BY Americans, of course, George... We'll just have to have a word with the newly re-empowered House Un-American Activities Commission, empowered to investigate everything from what "we" don't like to what "we" don't understand....

The above message brought to you by the Posse for a More Fascist America. Don't like it? VOTE for people who will do something about it, then! This may well be the last election before they burn the Reichstag....errr, I mean the....

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[swb]

"Excessive force" is not a criminal charge, at least not in Minnesota. It does not appear in Minnesota's laws and statutes. You can't be accused of killing someone deader than dead.

Some law enforcement officers have been "charged" within their own internal disciplinary system for the use of excessive force relative to their role as police officers (eg, when 6 NYC cops empty Glock 17s at some guy in a doorway), but this is largely a *political* outcome relative to "community outrage" when the cops are white and the person they shoot isn't. It is totally irrelevant to civilian use of deadly force.

Only in the most extreme, made-up-circumstances could a person use "too much" force, not be charged with a crime *and* then go on to lose some kind of civil judgement.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[easyTree]

You want to cheat? Fine- but you can't complain if others cheat back.

Sure you can. The rules are a (one-sided) contract between individuals and the state. That contract still exists for person B, even if person A broke the rules to the detriment of person B. [IANAL]

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Firethorn]

To be honest, I'll agree with that.

If you're going to buy a multipurpose pistol like the Judge at least partially for home defense, load it up with the .45 long colt pistol rounds for people protection.

And when I say 'point blank', I mean just that. Less than 7 feet, certainly, and I made no mention of killing.

Though it's always sobering to realize just how much velocity increase you can get going from a pistol length barrel to a rifle/shotgun.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[Cyberax]

They actually did it once (episode 013 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MythBusters_episodes )

Nothing happened until they blew the whole section of airplane using a lot of explosives :)

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[DavidTC]

I've always thought depressurizing the cabin of an airplane is actually a pretty useful way to foil attempted hijackers. It's hard to break into the cockpit when you can't leave your oxygen mask any amount of time. (The problem, of course, is that the pressure drop can kill people, so it's not 'safe', although it's certainly safer than being hijacked.)

Of course, I'm the guy that thinks everyone over the age of 18 should be handed a pocketknife upon boarding. Assuming we can actually keep firearms off the plane, that means that everyone will be equally armed...and a five people with knives can't hold off four dozen people with knifes.

Or, alternately, drop the knifes from the ceiling (Obviously in some sort of padding), like oxygen masks do now. That makes it much harder to 'take the knifes away' if they're just strewn semi-randomly all over the floor and anyone could have stuck one or two in their shoe.

In actuality, no one's attempting to hijack planes, so all this security is somewhat stupid, especially attempt to stop knifes from coming on board, as anything with a shape edge is a 'knife'. But whatever.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[DavidTC]

So the odds of a terrorist (or likely a collection of terrorists) taking that firearm onto a plane to randomly murder are very high. 5 or 6 dudes taking out half a plane before anyone realizes what's going on is a great way to get attention. Sure, they'll die in the process, but living life is not their #1 objective anyway.

You're a fool. Why on earth would they bother with an airplane when they could walk into a mall and take out an entire crowded escalator? (The panic injuries alone would probably kill as many as the actual shooting, especially if they had someone at both ends so both ends ran towards the middle.) Or position a person at each exit in a movie theater?

The only reason an airplane was used before is that a) previously, people had only hijacked airplanes to escape to some other country, and b) no one knew what was going on. No one is ever going to hijack an airplane for that purpose again.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[RobertLTux]

my take on this is by the time somebody is willing to try this kind of thing again what will happen is as follows

the Geek/Exec on the left wing seat will turn to the Geek/Exec on the right wing seat and get eye contact
the Geek on the right seat will nod and then they both will hit [crtl]+[alt]+[meta]+! and put their laptops on the bulkhead. Less than 30 seconds later the wings of the plane will be blown off.

Or Some group of RedNecks will start a fight with the highjackers

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[RobertLTux]

google |mythbusters airplane| for details of some testing on this

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[religious freak]

You're a fool.
Unless you work black ops for the gov't or in some other highly classified position, I think my opinion is as good as yours. I think we can be civil in our disagreements without trolling.

Incidents on planes scare the crap out of the right people. Namely, upper income individuals that feel safe in their McMansions, but feel vulnerable in other places.

The objective of terrorists is not necessarily killing the greatest number of people, it's to instill the maximum amount of fear. I'm not discounting the fact that a political terrorist could go nuts in a mall somewhere, but they tend to go for spectacular "shock and awe" type operations.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[fredklein]

The rules are a (one-sided) contract between individuals and the state.

Not at all. Rules govern inter-personal relations: ie: how people get along. What I can do to you (and what I cannot), and what you can do to me (and cannot). If one wishes the rules to not apply to them, then the only fair thing to do is suspend BOTH rules (what they can do to others, AND what others can do to them).

There is nothing as unfair as a 'bad guy' who gets away with breaking the rules, and a 'good guy' who is forced to follow them. This is shown time and time again in our entertainment. Look at Batman, Superman, Spiderman. All vigilantes who work OUTSIDE the system to beat bad guys. Look at Death Wish, Lethal Weapon, and Die Hard. People (even Cops!) who break the law to catch the bad guys are HEROS, in our society.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[OrangeTide]

In civil court they use examples of laws that you are not subject to to influence the case. I tried to explain this three times now, but you either do not understand or are not listening.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[easyTree]

Not at all. Rules govern inter-personal relations: ie: how people get along. What I can do to you (and what I cannot), and what you can do to me (and cannot).

Yes, I agree; rules _do_ govern interpersonal relations but I'm arging that they do so without requiring an agreement between every distinct pair of people. Instead, all individuals have an agreement forced upon them between themselves and the state.

 

If one wishes the rules to not apply to them, then the only fair thing to do is suspend BOTH rules (what they can do to others, AND what others can do to them).

[Warning: Incoming sporting analogy..]

So, if I make an illegal tackle in, let's say football, the ref should step in and suspend the 'no dangerous tackling' rule, thus beginning a free-for-all where the players can tackle each other as dangerously as they see fit?

Surely not. As you say, the purpose of rules is to promote interpersonal harmony. If person A in some way injures person B, allowing person B to engage in their own retaliatory action increases the overall disharmony and will almost certainly lead to further action from person A. The appropriate thing to do is for the state to punish the rule infringement. How does one strike back against the state?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[fredklein]

So, if I make an illegal tackle in, let's say football, the ref should step in and suspend the 'no dangerous tackling' rule, thus beginning a free-for-all where the players can tackle each other as dangerously as they see fit?

Nope. What I'm saying is, if you make an illegal tackle, don't cry like a baby because someone gives you an illegal faceguard pull. YOU were the one who chose to ignore the rules, don't complain when others don't follow the rules in regards to you.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[lysse]

I guess you thought Logic 101 beneath you?

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[cthulhu11]

I am frustrated and depressed over how bad things are getting here. I talked about some of it including the marketing problem we are manufacturing for ourselves here after my last trip to Japan. ... a country that routinely slaughters dolphins and flouts the international ban on whaling. The US hardly has a monopoly on barbarism.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[AshtangiMan]

Perhaps after this delay nobody but you will see this (ok by me).

I'm not complaining about cars speeding up to get past me, that is how I drive (rarely) around bikes, and how I prefer it while riding. But some cars will swerve towards you (perhaps you missed that part in my first post) in an attempt to (presumably) scare me because they believe (as others have posted below) that bikes should not be allowed on the roadway.

As a pedestrian, I have had incidents where cars are irritated that I am (legally, and not jaywalking) crossing in front of them while they are at a stop sign . . . this is in residential areas, and they barely stop and accelerate through the intersection at me.

It would be a mistake to assume that I would kill anyone for frustrating me /pissing me off. Nice troll, there, and way to have a reasonable dialog about this.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again

[AshtangiMan]

I don't recall mentioning any hand signals. But yes, this is good advice to all cyclists. I started out (years ago) with a sense of righteousness and would signal to cars who were driving improperly around me. This was about as helpful as cars honking at cyclists that they feel are driving improperly. It is just stupid, and something that for the last few years I have stopped. I just ignore any honks, and also ignore those who try to scare me by the shenanigans in my first post. That doesn't mean I like it, and it doesn't mean it's ok. Driving that way around cyclists is nothing less than attempted murder, and my point is that in the heat of the moment people will act this way, regardless of my actions.

Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[DaRat]

Given how well current TSA rules are implemented by the agents, I expect that there will be considerable confusion at the security checkpoints.

Hell, I'm a geek, and I'm not sure how many grams of lithium metal are in my laptop's batteries. How should I expect a nontechnical person be able to size up a battery and tell which batteries should be allowed and which shouldn't?

And, are they even going to count batteries in cellphones and iPods?

I expect that many spare batteries will simply be seized and tossed in the trash.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Obyron]

I expect that many spare batteries will simply be seized and tossed in the trash.

Try sold on eBay instead. Seized property is typically sold by the states in Surplus Property auctions, where it can be bid on by the public at large, or in some cases the airports themselves sell the stuff in lots on eBay. The government is making a buck on the battery it confiscates from you.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Revotron]

Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt. Therefore, your cellphones, cameras, iPods and laptops aren't affected. They're talking about spare batteries that are loose in the luggage, and they even mention that placing your batteries in their original packaging or in a zip-lock bag is deemed a safe storage location that prevents shorting.

It took longer to type this response than it did to read and comprehend the article itself.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how much electronic gizmoage you have to have, and how far you have to be travelling for it to make more economic sense for you to turn around at security and keep your stuff (but waste your ticket) than to travel but chuck the stuff. Particularly for integrated batteries like those in ipods where you're going to have to leave the whole machine with security, not just the battery.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed... RTFA:

The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:

        * Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.
        * You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below.
        * For a lithium metal battery, whether installed in a device or carried as a spare, the limit on lithium content is 2 grams of lithium metal per battery.
        * Almost all consumer-type lithium metal batteries are below 2 grams of lithium metal. But if you are unsure, contact the manufacturer!

So even if it's installed, it has to be under 25 grams of lithium total.

Considering the normal travel equipment I bring is a cell, a laptop (with two installed batteries), a digital camera (EOS XT) with two installed batteries, and sometimes a second camera for underwater photography, how are they going to know exactly what number I'm up to? what if I actually wanted to be the smart photograher and bring an extra battery for each?
 
AND How is it any safer to have batteries INSTALLED in checked on luggage than to just have them in proper packaging?
 
Eventually we're going to have to find some way (other than not buying plane tickets) to fight these kinds of regulations.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[spiritgreywolf]

That's not how I read it. TFA says:

"The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours"

They highlighted the word BOTH in the sentence above.

So I wonder - I travel with a laptop, 1 spare laptop battery, an iPod, a Samsung phone with Litihium battery and a spare battery for the cell. I even have a Sony reader which I believe has an internal lithium battery in it.

The way I read the article it looks like the bastards at the TSA are going to make some money selling some of my stuff they'll ultimately confiscate. And it will ultimately be at the whim of whichever retard I get that starts riffling through my carry on.

I swear, there are so many 3-letter agencies now that need a serious restructuring in Amerika that it's getting rather frightening.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Read the rules on the DOT site itself. Here is a quote

"The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:"

If your going to complain about someone else not stating the facts, be sure that you have yours correct.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[whoever57]

Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt.

The AP article may state this, but the DOT page does not. Installed batteries are also subject to limits -- from the DOT page:

The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the fucking article? Clearly not, and therefor YOU SUCK. Idiot.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Z00L00K]

And the interesting thing is that it seems to be limited to Lithium batteries - not any other type. So it's still possible to check in 20 kilograms of leak-proof batteries of any other type? ;-)

The probability of a battery going wild is relatively low.

It seems to me that flying is more and more like cattle transports for every year. It's also about as comfortable as sitting on a collective toilet for several hours...

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[DragonWriter]

Read the article - it clearly states that installed batteries are exempt. Therefore, your cellphones, cameras, iPods and laptops aren't affected.

The government page at the first link in TFS clearly does not exempt installed batteries. It clearly states Lithium/Metal batteries with over 2g lithium whether "spare" or "installed" in either checked or carry-on baggage are prohibited , that Lithium/Metal batteries with up to 2g lithium content each or Lithium/Ion batteries with up to 8g lithium content each are permitted in checked baggage when installed and in carryons installed or spare, and that up to 2 Li/Ion batteries with 8-25g are allowed installed in devices in either carryon or checked baggage, or spare in carry-on baggage.

It also indicates that all devices with lithium batteries installed, in either carry-on or checked baggage, must be ensured to remain off either with switch/trigger locks, with the activation switch taped off, or with some other "appropriate measure".

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, the article really isn't that complicated. There is no limit on the number of batteries under 8g lithium equivalent content per battery. There is a limit of 2 on the number of batteries over 8g lithium equivalent content per battery, with an additional 25g limit on the aggregate lithium equivalent content. If you're the typical nerd-warrior with iPod, cellphone, PSP, digital camera and laptop, you can easily carry all these devices and spares for each. You're only in trouble if you have an extremely high capacity battery for your laptop (>300Wh, would power a normal laptop for more than 15 hours at low load) or two high capacity batteries with more than 300Wh combined or more than two spares with more than 100Wh each.

The more notable restriction is the exclusion of spare batteries in checked luggage. It's easy to forget that you can't check your camera or spare batteries when you don't plan to use the camera on the plane.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Altus]

you know, I was thinking about traveling with my tool kit this summer (well, part of it, just the saw and drill and extra batteries). I'm fairly sure its not lithium since they now sell the same tools with lithium batteries... but will a TSA agent know this?

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot you moron! no-one RTFAs!

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they still teach kids how to read these days?

So even if it's installed, it has to be under 25 grams of lithium total.

Bummer, no 300Wh batteries. Do you have any idea how much that is? That's roughly the energy in the battery of a small car!

Almost all consumer electronic batteries, including those for laptops, fall into the <8g equivalent lithium content category: "you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content." Notice how they don't say, "at most x batteries with..." or somesuch? If it has less than 8 gram equivalent lithium content and is in your carry-on luggage, it is not a problem.

Only if you have batteries with more than 100Wh each (>8g equivalent lithium content), you have to observe the additional rule that the sum of these batteries must be below 25g ELC and you can't have more than 2 of these very high capacity batteries.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[argmanah]

Seized property is typically sold by the states in Surplus Property auctions, where it can be bid on by the public at large, or in some cases the airports themselves sell the stuff in lots on eBay. The government is making a buck on the battery it confiscates from you. If it makes it to the end of the shift. I have seen on multiple occasions screeners at security checkpoints simply pocket what they confiscate. A few months ago, someone near me in line had a bottle of expensive moisturizer in a gift box. They told her it was a liquid and would have to be confiscated. As she picked up the rest of her belongings the TSA employee put it in her purse. This is the kind of people who work for the TSA. God forbid someone who's actually a threat finds one of these morally shady people and bribes them to let something actually dangerous through. If you're going to subject people to this kind of scrutiny as they pass through the airport, the least you can do is hire people who aren't security risks themselves. As it is, the TSA is little more than a joke.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Barterer]

..Which is why if your stuff is about to be confiscated, you should break it.

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[Clete2]

I sure hope not. Some of my batteries are worth $150+

Re:Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT!

[hacker]

They told her it was a liquid and would have to be confiscated. As she picked up the rest of her belongings the TSA employee put it in her purse.

And here's the other part of that scam: There's no way to turn around, go back to the check-in counter and ship the about-to-be "confiscated" item(s) using standard baggage, the DHL kiosks or any other means. Once you're in the line, and they go through your carry-on and determine there are "contraband" items, you're screwed.

The fact that another poster said that the TSA resells these "confiscated" items in bulk auctions further reinforces that you should immediately break or contaminate the item about to be confiscated.

If it is expensive conditioner, then put it all over your hands and arms, and begin rubbing it in.. or if you can't do that, open the container and spit in it. If it is a battery, put it on the ground and stomp on it as hard as you can, to crack the battery casing, rendering it useless.

Wait let me get this straight...

[pwnies]

Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries? Maybe it's just me, but the large majority of the lithium batteries that I've read about exploding were ones that were installed. I've yet to hear about a spare one going jihad on the luggage next to it.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[jandrese]

All this means is you have to remember to swap out your optical drive for the spare battery before going through the security line. The TSA folks probably would not appreciate it if you forgot and had to do it in front of them, they're not allowed to have a sense of humor.

Quick question: Can you actually short out a spare battery enough to cause it to explode by putting a paperclip between the terminals? That sounds like a saftey hazard if true. All of the battery explosions I've heard about are caused by malfunctioning current limiters on the charging side though.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Chyeld]

I have one better for you. W(hy)TF is the restriction on checked baggage and not on carry on baggage, if they think there is a safety issue?

"Why yes sir, those batteries are very, very dangerous. So please keep them as close to yourself and the other passengers as possible instead of storing them away safely in our baggage area."

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[LWATCDR]

The problem with spare Li batteries is that the contacts are often exposed and easy to short out. When that happens if the safety circuit doesn't kick in they will "vent" with flame.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about whole battery packs, but some lithium ion cells I replaced in a laptop battery pack became too hot to touch after ~2 seconds of (accidental!) shorting out, so I think that, barring some type of circuit breaker/fuse between the contacts and the cells, it would be possible.

Don't get me started on how stupid most of these restrictions are...

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[timster]

Well, that at least is completely obvious. The gorillas who "handle" the checked baggage are likely to crack the casing on poorly-packed batteries, but most people are reasonably careful with their own stuff.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Twanfox]

Pardon my ignorance for a second, but is this not a problem for ALL batteries, and Li just seems to be the flavor of the week? Unmoderated and rapid discharge of any battery will cause them to overheat and rupture/catch fire/catch other things on fire.

Oops. I probably just gave the TSA another idea of something to ban on flights. *sigh*

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they start on fire, it's more likely to be recognized and contained quickly if humans are 4 inches away from it, rather than down in the hold that no one's watching that may or may not have automatic fire suppressant (I honestly don't know, I suspect they probably have to..).. but the human nose and eyes and sense of touch are much better than the automated "Oh crap it just got hot in here, stuff must already be REALLY freaking on fire sesnsors.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[scheme]

I have one better for you. W(hy)TF is the restriction on checked baggage and not on carry on baggage, if they think there is a safety issue?

"Why yes sir, those batteries are very, very dangerous. So please keep them as close to yourself and the other passengers as possible instead of storing them away safely in our baggage area."

If you read the article, they say that they prefer the batteries in carry-on luggage so that the cabin crews can extinguish the fire if the batteries do short. The fire suppression systems in the luggage compartment may not be able to handle this scenario.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Kjella]

If you read the article, they say that they prefer the batteries in carry-on luggage so that the cabin crews can extinguish the fire if the batteries do short. The fire suppression systems in the luggage compartment may not be able to handle this scenario. If they can't handle a fire in the luggage room, isn't that the big WTF they should be trying to fix? Has this ever happened by accident during a flight? Or is it one of those freak accident things you'd just let the insurance company work out, if it ever happened? Surely it's not the first flammable object in luggage that could catch fire. At best they've figured out it's plausible for someone to jerry-rig a bunch of these to discharge and create a real threat situation on purpose, or they're smoking crack.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[LWATCDR]

The problem with Li batteries is the energy density is so high.
I have dead shorted alkaline batteries before and they got hot but didn't
vent with flame.
Li is the most common battery type for mobile devices that people will tend to carry on a plane so they are the primary target for this rule is my guess.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[WebCowboy]

Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries?

Such spare batteries left in junk drawers have been known to burn houses right to the ground. The exposed metal contacts short against other metal objects such as paper clips, and many batteries will combust when shorted for too long. It's next to impossible to make sure that these batteries are always properly stowed when put in checked luggage (whereas taking inventory of these batteries is much easier done in carry-on baggage which is scrutinised much more closely than checked baggage). The exposed contacts on a battery could easily short against a metal clip or zipper commonly found on luggage.

Incidentally, this isn't just limited to lithium batteries--even some higher-output alkaline and NiMH batteries can supply enough power to generate dangerous temperatures when shorted--enough to start fires when placed next to combustible materials. Shorting a fresh 9V alkaline battery like you'd put in your alarm clock against an SOS pad under the right conditions will create a nice little pyrotechinics show.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA

The Federal Aviation Administration has found that fire-protection systems in the cargo hold of passenger planes can't put out fires sparked in lithium batteries.

The National Transportation Safety Board earlier this month said it could not rule out lithium batteries as the source of a cargo plane fire at Philadelphia International Airport last year.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[DragonWriter]

If they can't handle a fire in the luggage room, isn't that the big WTF they should be trying to fix?

Yes, they should, but even if they did, that's a longer term fix.

Has this ever happened by accident during a flight?

There was one fire on a plane last year where lithium batteries can't be ruled out as a source, so "maybe".

OTOH, "can't be ruled out as a source" isn't anywhere close to "are likely to have been the source".

Surely it's not the first flammable object in luggage that could catch fire.

No, that's why they have fire suppression systems in the luggage compartment. OTOH, fire or explosive hazards that cannot be managed by such systems have been banned when those hazards have been discovered in the past, even before the TSA existed.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[WebCowboy]

Has this ever happened by accident during a flight?

If these new rules are strictly due to safety and not some silly anti-terrorist measure that assures travelers we're doing SOMETHING to protect them against some crazy jihad-monger, then yes, this probably happened during a flight in the recent past and is why the regulation was put in place.

This might be like the fatal Air Canada 797 fire and crash landing which led to multiple changes in regulations (including complete smoking bans on all airlines operating in Canada, restrictions on materials used for interiors, changes to electrical codes and safety training procedures). Two suspected causes, a cigarette disposed of in the lavatory and/or a seized motor overheating wiring splices before breakers tripped, led directly to rule changes.

INcidentally, that fire took hold and started smouldering OUTSIDE of the passenger seating area, in the lavatory itself and under and behind the seating area. Alarms went off but the precise location of the fire wasn't known until it was established, and the toxic smoke was what was the most dangerous, not the flames or even heat.

If you HAVE to deal with a fire on-board an aircraft, or in ANY location for that matter, it is MUCH better for it to happen right where people can see it. There is NO automated fire suppression system in existence that is more effective than trained people (there is no way to guarantee a fire is completely contained, etc). The cargo hold is not readily accessible to the crew or anyone else on board and a fire can spread in seconds.

So personally, I'd rather have my dell start shooting flames right in front of me and get a little burnt in a very brief incident than to have the battery set several suitcases on fire and start causing structural damage before some automated system *might* contain it long enough to descend from 37,000 ft.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Detritus]

Spare batteries are more dangerous than installed batteries?

Yes, they are. An installed battery is protected from physical damage and short circuits. This is a real issue with lithium batteries, that can fail catastrophically when damaged.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Capt'n Hector]

No kidding. On a flight from Birmingham, UK, they made me remove the extra strings from my violin case, but were perfectly content to allow the strings already on my violin. Common sense doesn't apply to airport security.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[aaarrrgggh]

Oxygen generators were determined to be the cause of ValuJet Flight 592 crash in the Everglades. They are still permitted in the cargo hold.

The stupid irony of all these regulations is the lack of scrutiny that goes into air cargo/mail screening. Why the heck can you mail something that you can't check in your luggage?! Can I please win the lottery and buy a private jet? I'm getting sick of this crap...

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not luggage - that is a 'device', so those batteries are not spare - they are installed in the device.

  If a Li-ion battery explodes, is it not then an explosive 'device'? Or perhaps the battery is a child's toy, much like vinegar and baking soda?

daryl and daryl

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[tilandal]

Because a fire can be managed if it is caught before it spreads through the cargo hold. This message brought to you by Captain Obvious.

Re:Wait let me get this straight...

[Steve001]

It seems to me that the solution is to carry the spare batteries in a case/holder that will prevent them from being shorted. I carry my spare AA batteries in carrying case (it was one I received when I bought some Sony alkaline AA batteries) that provides excellent protection for the batteries and makes it impossible for the batteries to short.

In the same way, it should be possible for the battery's maker to provide a protective case with the battery that would allow it to be safely carried when not in the device. Due to the sheer number of different types of batteries, I doubt that it would be possible for a third-party manufacturer to provide these type of cases.

New rule

[Etrias]

There must be a contest at the TSA to come up with the most ridiculous ideas for restrictions. Winners get a tote bag, mug and an "I is stoppin' der terrarists" t-shirt.

Re:New rule

[bleh-of-the-huns]

The TSA did not come up with it, PHMSA came up with it, TSA just enforces it.

Re:New rule

[Mr.Ned]

Bruce Schneier has run two; the latest one can be found at http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/04/announcing_seco.html

"Your goal: invent a terrorist plot to hijack or blow up an airplane with a commonly carried item as a key component. The component should be so critical to the plot that the TSA will have no choice but to ban the item once the plot is uncovered. I want to see a plot horrific and ridiculous, but just plausible enough to take seriously.

Make the TSA ban wristwatches. Or laptop computers. Or polyester. Or zippers over three inches long. You get the idea."

Re:New rule

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know. I thought the whole liquid container thing was pretty ridiculous. You are not allowed a 16-oz bottle of liquid, but you are allowed 5 3-oz containers of liquid in a plastic bag inside of a larger container.

Re:New rule

[ejasons]

Make the TSA ban wristwatches. Or laptop computers. Or polyester. Or zippers over three inches long. You get the idea."

I've been waiting (hoping) for someone to try to smuggle an explosive in their brassiere -- the reaction to that would be interesting...

Re:New rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Skip the (C4) padded bra and just go right to liquid explosive filled implants.

Re:New rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I did get my tote bag, mug, and t-shirt. And don't forget a chance at accompanying Cheney on a hunting trip. I hear those are a blast!

Re:New rule

[nguy]

You means as in:

On Sept. 3, a man leaving Orlando, Fla., filed a lengthy complaint because he said a screener touched him "like no man ever has -- not even my doctor." "This type of bodily inspection, privately or publicly, is undignified," he wrote. "Have terrorists succeeded in making us that scared of each other?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22346693/

Re:New rule

[ScrewMaster]

Winners get a tote bag, mug and an "I is stoppin' der terrarists" t-shirt.

And an extra battery for their laptop.

Can't tell from the link

[Lookin4Trouble]

Does this mean I can't bring the external 4-hour battery I bought for my laptop? My laptop's battery lasts ~2 hours, and I bought the external with the sole purpose of USING IT ON THE FREAKING PLANE for the additional four hours it takes to get from East Coast to West Coast...

Re:Can't tell from the link

[cptdondo]

Hey, the airlines gotcha covered. Just pay an extra $500 for the seat with the 'convenience jack'.

Think I'm kidding? The last flight I was on wanted a $30 premium for the exit row seat, and $2 for a ubag of chips.

I just invented that word - ubag == microbag - those tiny bags the airlines used to call 'snacks' and give away when they stopped serving real food. Now they're selling them for $2....

The cosmetics that used to come in 8 oz. sizes are now "NEW AND IMPROVED" - same size bottle, same price, but only 3.4 oz.

Never underestimate the ability to make a buck.

Re:Can't tell from the link

[Why2K]

As the summary itself said, this rule only applies to checked luggage, so unless you were planning on running a cord to the cargo hold to use your spare battery you should have no problems.

Re:Can't tell from the link

[mcpkaaos]

FT[next sentence in the]S:

Batteries carried in the cabin are subject to limitations on per-battery and total lithium content, and spare batteries must have the terminals covered.

Re:Can't tell from the link

[cgenman]

With delays from new TSA regulations, you'd need an 8 hour battery anyway.

Re:Can't tell from the link

[DragonWriter]

Does this mean I can't bring the external 4-hour battery I bought for my laptop? My laptop's battery lasts ~2 hours, and I bought the external with the sole purpose of USING IT ON THE FREAKING PLANE for the additional four hours it takes to get from East Coast to West Coast...

Please read the first link in TFS. You can probably bring such a battery (a 130 watt-hour external battery of that type for laptops is one of their examples of the "special case" batteries that you can bring up to 2 carry-on), though whether you can use the device it is attached to is less clear ("Whether in checked or carry-on baggage, ensure that devices remain switched off, either by built-in switch/trigger locks, by taping the activation switch in the "off" postion, or by other appropriate measures.")

Re:Can't tell from the link

[Lookin4Trouble]

A bit late for commenting, more of a follow-up for you. The device in question is made specifically to be an extended battery for heavy-duty laptops. It weighs in at nearly 12 pounds, and just doing the quick napkin math, holds a charge around 400 watt-hours. I am in contact with the manufacturer, but have not received any reply yet. Here's to hoping I can fly with it, because I get cranky if I can't do _something_. ADHD for the lose...

$1 Camcorder

[muffel]

So all you need is a really cheap and small camcorder -- which doesn't really work but still uses a lithium battery. Thus turning your forbidden spare into an allowed non-spare battery?

Gotta go, fill out my patent application...

NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[jettoblack]

From TFA, this ruling only covers NON-rechargable lithium batteries, like the AA/AAA lithium cells sold by Energizer, etc. Also, batteries that are installed in equipment don't count. You just can't check loose lithium batteries or carry-on more than 2 loose batteries.

Again, to stress, this has NOTHING to do with rechargable Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries that are in most laptops, digital cameras, celphones, iPods, portable DVD players, etc...

Re:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[timster]

Sorry, I don't think so. Check out the handy chart in TFA.

Re:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the safetravel.dot.gov link.

Lithium-Ion Battery Installed in a Device
(up to 8 grams lithium equivalent content)

Permitted

Spare Lithium-Ion Battery (Not Installed in a Device)
(up to 8 grams lithium equivalent content)

Forbidden

The other article just says that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be affected. It does not say "just" non-rechargeable will be affected.

Re:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, to stress, this has NOTHING to do with rechargable Lithium-Ion Well, TFA clearly uses the term "Lithium-Ion" repeatedly, and even shows a picture of a laptop battery pack. Their itemized list indicates that such batteries are forbidden in checked baggage and limited in carry-on.

I'm sure the same rules will apply to Lithium-polymer. In fact, given that these rules will be implemented by TSA checkpoint workers, you can bet that they will simply apply to rule to anything that looks "battery-like." So the de facto end result is that all batteries (single use or rechargeable) will be limited by this new rule.

Re:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true. If you continue reading you will see lithium Ion batteries are also restricted:

Spare Lithium-Ion Battery (Not Installed in a Device)
(up to 8 grams lithium equivalent content)

Forbidden
Permitted in carry-on baggage 2

Re:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium

[DragonWriter]

From TFA, this ruling only covers NON-rechargable lithium batteries, like the AA/AAA lithium cells sold by Energizer, etc. Also, batteries that are installed in equipment don't count.

There are two different sources linked in the summary: a news report and the government website detailing the restrictions. Your statement seems to be based on the news report, and inconsistent with the detailed breakdown of the rules on the government site.

Again, to stress, this has NOTHING to do with rechargable Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries that are in most laptops, digital cameras, celphones, iPods, portable DVD players, etc...

Please explain, then, why the DOT page linked in TFS says, among other things, "Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.". Also explain why that page provides a detailed breakdown of what is allowed and what prohibited for Lithium/Ion batteries (using cellphone, laptops, and professional A/V equipment batteries as specific examples of where things fall with regard to the limits) if the limits don't apply to " Lithium-Ion or Lithium-Polymer batteries that are in most laptops, digital cameras, celphones, iPods, portable DVD players, etc..."

Let me sell you a device...

[SleptThroughClass]

"When batteries are installed in a device, they are not considered spare batteries."

I think I'll build a device which holds batteries. It will tell you the weight of the contained batteries. So you'll be able to follow the rules for installed batteries as well as the weight limit on installed batteries.

Retarded

[ewhac]

From an Administration whose keynote from the word Go has been, "Failure," this is just fscking retarded. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish?

I have LIon batteries in my laptop, my cell phone, my Bluetooth earpiece, my Nintendo DS, and probably my shoes for all I know. I already have to remove my screwdrivers from my carry-on bag and place them in checked baggage or leave them at home, because they are Official Threats To The Integrity Of The Republic ("Take this plane to Cuba or I'll unscrew the wings from the plane").

Someone needs to slap around the retards coming up with this stuff and force-feed them a clue.

Schwab

Re:Retarded

[TechyImmigrant]

The article said *non rechargeable* lithium batteries.

Your rechargeables don't count for this particular ban.

Don't tell them that it is the rechargable LiIon batteries installed in laptops that have been exploding.

Re:Retarded

[Rob the Bold]

The article said *non rechargeable* lithium batteries.

The AP article says that, but the chart on TFTSA website has limits/bans on rechargeables, too.

Re:Retarded

[urcreepyneighbor]

"Take this plane to Cuba or I'll unscrew the wings from the plane" Sure thing, boss! Gitmo, here we come!

Re:Retarded

[ScentCone]

my Bluetooth earpiece

I'm sorry, I lost track of your credibility when I was distracted by your Borg Bling.

Re:Retarded

[SanguineV]

Little known fact; the ban on screwdrivers was initiated by the airlines who were afraid that economy passangers might remount the seats to have sufficient leg room.

Re:Retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least now you have an excuse to finally replace those old manual screwdriver's with carry-on approved power tools. Just be sure to lock the trigger... you wouldn't want your drill to activate accidentally mid-flight.

simple really

[Coraon]

I just have one question...WHY? why are these batteries bad and nickel-cadmium not? I mean it would be cool if they told us of the danger but big brother needs to let us know why something is bad.

Re:simple really

[jkerman]

google for "lithium battery fire" (or better yet, youtube)

no, im not talking about that one guy whose dell caught fire. im talking about what happens if you remove the protection circuit and short the leads of a lithium cell together...... its not the lithium thats the issue, its the entire lithium battery package.

For reference, lithium content of non-rechargeable

[amper]

Energizer AA (L91) ~.98 grams
Energizer AAA (L92) ~.5 grams
Energizer 123 ~.55 grams

as per Energizer technical data PDF's

*sigh*

[WizMaster]

At this point, I don't care anymore. Really, is anyone actually bothered by this? Should've seen it comming though. This is a waste of my tax money. Hell, it would be worth it if they were transparent and we knew the reasons for all of these rules. This goes far below checking shoes for bombs and even not allowing nail clippers on board. Whatever. Hopefully the next administration would bring some sense (*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*) to the US government.

Re:*sigh*

[psued0ch]

You know, at least be thankful that you are even able to use aerial transportation.

Re:*sigh*

[WizMaster]

Wow. I thought that was funny but, after I thought about it, I agree with you. That just makes me feel sad.

Re:*sigh*

[moderatorrater]

This almost makes me want to blow up an airplane just to prove how stupid and pointless these restrictions are. The only thing a terrorist can really do to the airplane anymore is blow it up, and there are too many ways to blow up an airplane without batteries that these restrictions are dumb beyond all belief.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing the current administration has done is set the precedent for the next administration. I assure you this is no laughing matter.

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised it took this long (though given the TSA I shouldn't be). I saw this coming when the first stories of exploding batteries came out. I've already been thinking about just shipping everything I would normally check.

Re:*sigh*

[IonOtter]

At this point, I don't care anymore. Wasn't this the plan all along? To keep pushing, chipping and nibbling away our rights and our lives until we just don't care anymore?

Re:*sigh*

[silas_moeckel]

Ah but thats the stupid bit there are really two things a terrorist can do with an airplane blow it up or take it over. Blowing it up is impossible to stop since said terrorist can pack his rectum full of enough explosives and walk through security to take out the plane, he is suicidal at this point he could just blow up a suicide belt in security and take out as many if not more people than on a plane. Now the taking over bit 9/11 was done with jail house weapons again you will never stop a pointy piece of plastic and most of them can be made into weapons inside the security perimeter or on the plane. Now stopping them from gaining access to the controls is pretty effective.

What we currently have is security theater to make grandma think they are doing something. It's funny small private planes and charter jets have none of these rules you can still literally get a limo onto the tarmac and fly away the same thing at the far end as long as it's a domestic flight not much more for international.

Two possible reasons.

[moogied]

I see two possible reasons why.

1. They felt there name had not been in the news paper recently enough.

2. They have heard of threats to blow lithium batteries up in a plane, possibly causing some kind of mid-air disaster. Can you honestly tell me that the x-ray machine guy has enough knowledge to recongnize a cd player LOOKING device that has 8 batteries inside, is actually a small bomb? Certainly I am talking *very* small. But, combine this with some hard liquor and you hav a much larger bomb.

Re:Two possible reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we talking about hard liquor as fuel for a bomb or fuel for the x-ray machine guy?

"I knowsh what I shaw. I wash a bomb!" *hiccup*

Re:Two possible reasons.

[BlueParrot]

Certainly I am talking *very* small. But, combine this with some hard liquor and you hav a much larger bomb.

Yea, I'm going to create a bomb using batteries and nail-scissors that I combine with things I buy on the tax free, like liqour, propane-propelled deoeodrant, crushed glass shrapnel, matches, razor blades... In fact, forget about the batteries and scissors.

Seriously, if I'm allowed to bring a 2kg candle through the security check, then I can't quite see the use in confiscating any liquid container in excess of 100ml (as if 100ml of explosives isn't enough to take down an airliner anyway ). If nothing else the OMGTERRORISTS could just set of their bombs in the security queue. Must have been thousands of people there last time I used the airport.

Stop allowing humans on flights

[Dunbal]

Because of the risk of an in-flight hazard, humans should no longer be allowed on aircraft. Airlines will, however, continue to fly your luggage anywhere you please, provided it contains no shoes, liquids, or lithium batteries.

Re:Stop allowing humans on flights

[Rob T Firefly]

It'd be an easy enough conclusion to leap to, given the length and breadth of the average TSA employee's experience with actual humans.

I wouldn't be surprised if a major TSA advisor dreams this one up on his own tonight, while snuggled up safe and sound with his cold, unfeeling wireframe mother.

Re:Stop allowing humans on flights

[mmxsaro]

>> Airlines will, however, continue to fly your luggage anywhere you please, provided it contains no shoes, liquids, or lithium batteries.

Sometimes, they'll even surprise you by flying your luggage to a random destination!

Re:Stop allowing humans on flights

[Dunbal]

Sometimes, they'll even surprise you by flying your luggage to a random destination!

      Which, in tribute to Douglas Adams, is probably Murmansk...

I imagine...

[jd]

...that this is in response to all the horror stories of the last year of batteries catching fire and/or exploding. Neither of which would be unique to lithium batteries, and is more a product of lousy quality control than rogue individuals. If Firestone/Bridgestone could end up having to explain themselves to Congress, and face hefty consequences, then why not do the same to battery makers who produce lithium bombs? You don't see bans on Jeeps or SUVs with Bridgestone tires on roll-on/roll-off/roll-over ferries, but far more vehicles were impacted (and far more severely) by the tire issue than computers have been by the battery issue.

There have been numerous comments on the inept handling of existing regulations by the TSA, including on here and including many by people currently or formerly employed by the TSA itself. Journalists and Government watchdog officials are forever getting banned items that are infinitely more dangerous than a battery past screeners. Mind you, other countries aren't any better. The French managed to lose a whole load of plastic explosives during a test run at a busy airport.

Re:I imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which moron decided to mod this "insightful"?

"You don't see bans on Jeeps or SUVs with Bridgestone tires on roll-on/roll-off/roll-over ferries, but far more vehicles were impacted (and far more severely) by the tire issue than computers have been by the battery issue."

Exactly how many of those accidents occurred on RoRo ferries? Given that the blowouts generally needed to happen at speed for anybody to be injured (let alone killed), I'm going to guess "none".

Quit trying to be clever when you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Re:I imagine...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

...that this is in response to all the horror stories of the last year of batteries catching fire and/or exploding. Neither of which would be unique to lithium batteries, and is more a product of lousy quality control than rogue individuals.

I suggest you read up on Li-Po (lithium polymer) cells. I can't recall about normal lithium ion cells, but lithium polymer cells are more dangerous than older cell technologies such as NiCads. If you miss-treat them, or there is a fault in the charging, or too much current is drawn, they can literally burst into flames much more violently than other types of cells.

Re:I imagine...

[jd]

Then quality control should include tests to ensure the casing can absorb shock, and that the interface between the usable pins and the battery prevents electrical errors. This is not to negate your point - quite the opposite. When a technology is unsound, it should either be prohibited until it is made sound, OR encapsulated to the point where it cannot be used outside of the design limits.

Re:I imagine...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Well, that's all very well, but design flaws, undetectable defects, and accidents happen. I mean, how exactly do you decide when something is sound while still being realistic?

Re:I imagine...

[jd]

Some technologies can be made safe (within reason) by use of governing technologies and fail-safe designs. In the case of Lithiun Ion batteries, I believe excessive power drain and excessive voltages for recharging were listed as problems. A Zenner diode stops those. Operation outside of thermal ranges? Thermistors would seem to be the simplest solution. Draining the battery below a minimum level is also nasty for lithium ion batteries, if I recall. Provided there is something that signals (or, better, stops signaling) when the battery drops below that limit, a transistor would cut the circuit and prevent damage.

Is that perfect? No. It's quite respectable, though, and still cheap enough to be practical for the battery, the recharger/adapter, etc. Added to which, the probabilities are not cumulative - only the permutation of all things failing in compatible ways would produce an unsafe result. As a result, you can get as safe as you can reasonably afford.

Re:I imagine...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

And you're sure that many batteries don't already use any of these measures?

Re:I imagine...

[jd]

If batteries had these kinds of circuits, I seriously doubt the problems that we've seen would have occurred frequently enough to force a mass recall, and the "memory" problem would never have become burned into public awareness. Besides which, I've never known electronics manufacturers (or anyone else) to add in safety if they didn't have to.

Re:I imagine...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

So you don't have any actual facts?

Re:I imagine...

[jd]

As opposed to some other sort of fact? Never knew there were any. Fascinating. I take (a) the lack of protective circuits on any battery I've seen, and (b) the accounts from manufacturers I don't use are giving accounts that match what I expect if their batteries match what I've seen.

you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[circletimessquare]

anymore because of the unabomber

like anything, it's costs versus benefits. costs of having to go to the post office if you have a package, costs of not flying with my trusty shotgun: neglible

benefits: also neglible

it's a tempest in teapot, both in terms of more security restrictions, and less security restrictions

no big deal. and yet people get their panties in a twist. it impresses me more that some people just have a psychosomatic need to get upset about neglible things

there are guys who would hijack airplanes. it's rare. so people have to bend over backwards now every time they want to get on an airplane. oh well

but it seems to me the same sort who whine and moan about more security at airports are the same who would whine and moan about the government not doing more to protect us when a terrorist hijacking happens. people like to whine and moan. for the most part, the balance of their "concerns" are stupid. there are a lot of real concerns in the world. there are a lot of people with real problems in the world. but most of the concerns we hear about are the cosmetic paperweight issues of upper middle class busybodies. nonissues

feel free to whine and moan about my post because i see no need to whine and moan about more security at airports

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Anonymous Coward]

Your entire attitude reminds me of a joke I heard overseas - and wholeheartedly agree with...

Q: Why are so many Americans ignorant and apathetic about the problems they are facing.

A: *Yawns and shrugs* Don't know, don't care...

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[timster]

With an outlook like that, you should run for President. Imagine all the problems that we could ignore! Imagine how bad we could make life for the middle class, and it would be all OK! After all, nothing that affects mostly the middle class matters, because they aren't poor enough.

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[plague3106]

like anything, it's costs versus benefits. costs of having to go to the post office if you have a package, costs of not flying with my trusty shotgun: neglible

No, there is a cost. The cost of security screeners to take your gun, call the police and arrest you. Just like a package in a roadside bin today would have the bombsquad out.

At airports, we now have wasted tickets because you can't change last minute, wasted time and delays, innocent people being killed (albiet by accident), and the benefits are small, if any. So its really a high cost, low benefit situtation... not low cost high benefit as you claim it to be.

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Anonymous Coward]

but it seems to me the same sort who whine and moan about more security at airports are the same who would whine and moan about the government not doing more to protect us when a terrorist hijacking happens.

It seems to me you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. one side of that argument is by liberal thinking people and the other is uptight conservative retards, and never the two shall meet.

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Jtheletter]

but it seems to me the same sort who whine and moan about more security at airports are the same who would whine and moan about the government not doing more to protect us when a terrorist hijacking happens.

Any evidence at all to support this assertion other than the fact that it conveniently lets you shrug off any and all TSA complaints?

I'm sick of hearing people say things like this, because it's a false assertion and regardless it proves nothing. Guess what, both complaints can be valid. If a new security measure doesn't actually provide any more security, but instead causes delays, confusion, inconvenience then it has failed to improve the situation and thus yes, we CAN complain that useless security is being implemented AND the government didn't do enough to prevent an incident. By focusing resources on useless crap like this and other restrictions the security forces are wasting time and money and potentially missing out on other, more realistic threats.

One of the biggest problem with all these little regulations is that they are highly subjectively enforced, and this one will be no different. You leave from one airport with your extra cellphone battery no problem, but returning from another airport security will confiscate it. Now screeners are going to be spending their time scrutinizing every portable device and battery, shoes, tubes of toothpaste, cologne bottles, half finished bottles of soda, etc. With all the time and effort spent looking at USELESS CRAP when is there time for actual security? If someone wanted to bring down a plane in a one-shot, make-it-crash attempt then they'd be able to do it. There's plenty of ways that aren't impacted by all these ridiculous carry on restrictions as others have already pointed out.

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Justus]

Having "enjoyed" airline travel over the holidays this year, I suppose I can comment a bit on what I dislike about the state of airport security in the US these days.

Mostly, I feel it's rather demeaning. I used to travel a lot in the late nineties, when security was much less invasive, and I feel that it's no safer today than it was back then. There have been many instances of prohibited materials being slipped past TSA security, and oftentimes the regulations are overly restrictive and do little to nothing to improve actual security. I'm not going to be hijacking an airplane with my Swiss Army keychain (1" blade). I don't feel that I should be hassled about taking off my shoes for the X-ray machine when I've just watched eight people go through the metal detector without doing so. If we're going to have substantial airport security (which I would suggest is not necessary), it should be evenly enforced by well-paid, well-trained individuals with policies that are shown to have an impact. What we have now does little more than inconvenience travelers and provide a false sense of security.

This may be middle class whining, but I feel that it's not unreasonable.

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Anonymous Coward]

What we have now does little more than inconvenience travelers and provide a false sense of security. It's not just a "false sense of security" it's also a false sense of something to be so afraid of.. i.e. terror...
Definitions:
Terrorist: A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
So the TSA is a form of intimidation... and the government it seems to me put it there for political reasons... so some people in the government are terrorists!

Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins

[Xolotl]

I flew international long distance in December. 3 flights out and 4 flights back. It was a work trip, but the programme included sightseeing.

So I had: 1 laptop + power supply, 1 phone + charger, 1 digital SLR with 2 lenses + battery charger and spare battery, 1 compact digital + spare batteries, 1 electric shaver (after 30-odd hours of travelling I wanted to look presentable when I arrived). None of these things would I have put into hold baggage: they're valuable, fragile and also I needed most of them. Before each flight (and in fact twice at one airport, where there was a change of terminals) I was required to unpack all my electronics from my carry-on bag for scanning separately, plus of course coat, belt, the bag itself and shoes on 2 occasions. Each time the whole unpacking and packing took several minutes and used 3-4 of those trays they give you. Of course anyone else with cameras or laptops had to do the same, so the aggregate delay and hassle was immense.

Now I can understand the need to scan all this, but it seems that the existing system is inadequate to cope with all the additional checks which are being required, or to keep up with personal technology. We are now routinely carrying many more electronic items than 10 or even 5 years ago.

What I'm waiting for...

[Mad Quacker]

Is for the trash cans at TSA checkpoints to explode from TSA idiots tossing your charged battery packs into it at random. You thought one laptop exploding was bad.

You can't cure stupid.

Re:What I'm waiting for...

[geminidomino]

You're assuming said batteries end up in the trash instead of in some scumbag TSA drone's lunchbox to end up on ebay that night.

Here's an idea.

[Revotron]

Perhaps you could read the article, which states the reason why a ban was put into effect.

Spare, exposed lithium batteries are capable of shorting out. In response to the flaming cargo plane that graced Philadelphia a few months ago, I think the TSA is just trying to play it safe.

Re:Here's an idea.

[moogied]

Woah woah woah. You must be new hear.. RTFA? NEVAH!!

Re:Here's an idea.

[moogied]

lol wow.

Can someone please mod this up and then mod the comment that comes after highlighting that I actually said hear instead of here :(

Re:Here's an idea.

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Its not just that they may have caused a fire, its that lithium fires require chemical fire suppressant, which is not what is installed on planes (as far as I know). Using water, or standard dry non chemical suppressant will do nothing or spread the fire (ever drop lithium into water??)

Lithium reacts intensely with water, forming lithium hydroxide and highly flammable hydrogen. The colourless solution is highly alkalic. The exothermal reactions lasts longer than the reaction of sodium and water, which is directly below lithium in the periodic chart.

Re:Here's an idea.

[TooMuchToDo]

Remarks of Mark V. Rosenker, Chairman National Transportation Safety Board For the Cargo Airline Association
Washington, DC October 17, 2007

Currently, cargo airplanes are only required to have a fire detection system and not a fire suppression system, for in-flight cargo fire protection. After the Newburgh investigation, the Safety Board issued a recommendation to the FAA to examine the possibility of on-board fire suppression systems and to require them if they were feasible. The FAA stated that a suppression system would add significant additional weight to an aircraft and determined they should not be required. Yet fire suppression systems offer a significant improvement in fire safety and the Safety Board continues to encourage the FAA to evaluate currently available systems and promote new technology to reduce weight, increase reliability and create a system whose cost will encourage operators to install them. As a matter of fact, FedEx has introduced a fire suppression system into its aircraft that meets all these criteria.

http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/rosenker/mvr071017.html

Lithium Ion too - just not as restrictive

[El Gigante de Justic]

From the TSA webpage, it does apply to some Lithium-Ion batteries.
        Batteries up to 8-grams "equivalent lithium content" installed in devices or as spares are allowed. For Lithium-ion batteries between 8 and 25 grams aggregate lithium equivalent content are also allowed, but you can only have 2 total (both spare and installed).
        Lithium Metal batteries just have tighter restrictions.

As for the reasons behind this (since some apparantly didn't read TFA)- it sounds like there was a cargo hold fire on one plane caused by lithium batteries and apparently the current fire control systems in planes can't handle lithium fires.

Re:Lithium Ion too - just not as restrictive

[DragonWriter]

As for the reasons behind this (since some apparantly didn't read TFA)- it sounds like there was a cargo hold fire on one plane caused by lithium batteries

Are you one that didn't read TFA? Because there is a big gap between "The National Transportation Safety Board earlier this month said it could not rule out lithium batteries as the source of a cargo plane fire at Philadelphia International Airport last year" and "there was a cargo hold fire on one plane caused by lithium batteries".

Re:Lithium Ion too - just not as restrictive

[Thanatos69]

Ummm, so something that isn't ruled out in a fire that happened is the cause of batteries being banned?

I heard a couple years ago about a plane crash because of pilot error, lets ban pilots! Our country would be way safer without pilots.

Safety issue not terrorism

[calidoscope]

Restrictions on shipping lithium primary batteries by air cargo have been in place for over a year now and this also applied to equipment with lithium primary batteries. There are similar restriction for shipping large lithium secondary batteries.

The news rules do make sense, a in-flight fire on an airliner is pretty serious, especially if there is no nearby place to land (e.g. halfway between California and Hawaii).

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[RealGrouchy]

an in-flight fire on an airliner is pretty serious, especially if there is no nearby place to land (e.g. halfway between California and Hawaii). No place to land, sure, but plenty of water to put out the fire!

- RG>

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

what's wrong with the pacific ocean? Surely if you've got a fire, ditching in water is perfect! Do I get a job in airline management now?

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[Khyber]

Not to mention airplanes don't carry a class-D extinguisher to handle metal fires.

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[ray-auch]

No place to land, sure, but plenty of water to put out the fire!

Umm... you want to put out a _lithium_ fire using _water_ ?

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[ray-auch]

> what's wrong with the pacific ocean? Surely if you've got a fire, ditching in water is perfect! Do I get a job in airline management now?

No, but you could maybe get a job in chemistry - just take a small piece of lithium, set fire to it and then throw it in a big bucket of water to put that fire out... should be "perfect", right ?

PS: if the penny hasn't dropped yet: "DON'T try this at home kids".

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[calidoscope]

Good point wrt class-D extinguishers. One substitute is sand, but you're pretty much out of luck unless flying a DC-2 (which had a 1,000 lbm of sand in the back to fix weight and balance problems).

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[rworne]

If you have enough water, like between California and Hawaii - yes, I believe it would work just fine.

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[gallwapa]

Yeah, the second hit for lithium fire on google says "Copious amounts of water" will work :)

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[pyro_peter_911]

The news rules do make sense, a in-flight fire on an airliner is pretty serious, especially if there is no nearby place to land (e.g. halfway between California and Hawaii).

There is plenty of space to land between California and Hawaii. Just not a lot of safe places to land.

Peter

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[morcheeba]

Good thing they banned lighters, then! ;-) Just kidding, I agree. But, if they took fires seriously, I'd expect a lighter ban. But, the tobacco industry has bought a lot of pull among politicians.

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[geminidomino]

From the link: "First and foremost, lighters no longer pose a significant threat."

"No longer?" Did those mouthbreathers at the TSA manage to magically change the chemical properties of butane glass? Have all the planes been retrofitted with asbestos and halon systems?

I can't believe people actually buy this shit. If they're not a threat now, they weren't a threat on 9/12/2001 either...

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[SillyNickName]

The news rules do make sense,

How does it make sense that 2 people checking one battery each is safe but 1 person checking two batteries (even in separate bags) suddenly becomes unsafe? Makes sense? I don't think so.

Re:Safety issue not terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Made me laugh.

Seriously though, copper powder works wonders on lithium.

Still Fscking Retarded

[ewhac]

Okay, so the TSA Web site expressly discusses lithium batteries, and not lithium-ion batteries, the latter of which are used in laptops, cell phones, etc.

However, the confusion is understandable, since the TSA Web page has a picture of a fscking laptop computer as the article's headline.

But even given that, it's still fscking stupid. I suppose they imagine, by limiting power sources, they can do an end-run around that abject security failure that let simulated bomb parts through.

Is there an event horizon for national embarrassment? 'Cause I think we're getting damned close to it...

Schwab

Re:Still Fscking Retarded

[bleh-of-the-huns]

No, the TSA website lists both lithium, and lithium ion batteries, but with varying quantities of lithium installed in each type. The article, which I did not read, instead I just hit up the TSA website, but the article appears to be incorrect based on what people are posting.

Re:Still Fscking Retarded

[whoever57]

Okay, so the TSA Web site expressly discusses lithium batteries, and not lithium-ion batteries, the latter of which are used in laptops, cell phones, etc.

What is it about this article that people seem to have difficulty reading it? The DOT page clearly gives limits for Lithium-ion batteries. For example:

Lithium-Ion Battery Installed in a Device (up to 8 grams lithium equivalent content)

Re:Still Fscking Retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

And just how are you (and the TSA screeners) supposed to know how many grams of lithium are in each rechargable battery and device? Is there a list of common devices like iPods with their lithium contents?

Re:Why

[jj00]

From their FAQ:
"...In the passenger compartment, flight crews can better monitor safety conditions to prevent an incident, and can access fire extinguishers, if an incident does happen."

I'd say the real reason is that they don't want a fire to start in the luggage compartment.

Lead acid it is ....

[taniwha]

pretty soon we'll all be carry car batteries on with us ....

Captain: Scotty, I need more power to the engines we're not lifting
1st Officer: I canna do it sir - there's a party of geeks in the back and they all brought batteries for their laptops

Re:Lead acid it is ....

[tcgroat]

I know that was intended to be humorous, but lead-acid batteries have been restricted for a long time. A lead-acid battery that hasn't been qualified and marked as "non-spillable" doesn't fly. This regulation is just catching up with the times. It's not a consipracy, and it isn't even a US governemnt creation. This is merely a national regulation implementing the International Civial Aviation Organization agreements [pdf] covering air transport of dangerous items.

Re:Lead acid it is ....

[taniwha]

well lots of stuff (pacemakers for example) use sealed lead-acid - they do go on planes all the time - though I must admit the image I was going for was a queue of geeks all carrying car batteries and the xray machine conveyor table collapsing under the weight

RTFA

[KingBozo]

There is a reason given if you take the time to read.

The FAA has found that current systems for putting out aircraft cargo fires could not suppress a fire if a shipment of non-rechargeable batteries ignited during flight, the release said.

-Dave

Re:RTFA

[X0563511]

Then perhaps they should work on the fire suppression systems rather than avoid the problem.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Between now and the deployment of new suppression systems, what should they do?

Um.... Only Regular Lithium Batteries

[TheOddOne]

from TFA:

The ban affects shipments of non-rechargeable lithium batteries, such as those made by Energizer Holdings Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co.'s Duracell brand.

So this does not appear to affect RECHARGABLE Batteries... Once again, out great save-us-from-ourselves administration making rules so difficult to understand that we cant help us help ourselves to not hurt ourselves, so that they will have to help us not hurt us... I think...

More potent batteries are coming...

[mi]

When the even more potent energy-storing methods become available — like nuclear decay-based "batteries" or fuel-cells — they will, probably, be banned from aircraft outright.

And that would be even more of a shame, than not being able to have a spare with you :-(

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[geekoid]

I suspect there will be an energy source on the plane you can plug into. So you could store your battery appropriately.

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[mi]

I suspect there will be an energy source on the plane you can plug into. So you could store your battery appropriately.

The article talks about limitations on batteries even in checked luggage. Even if I can hook my laptop up to the plain, while flying, I still can't take a spare with me to the trip :( Or so it seems.

And if the new battery is based on nuclear decay or something scary-sounding like that, there is little hope, it will even be allowed into the airport.

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Why should they be automatically banned, unless they also pose a high fire-risk?

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[Cajun Hell]

There's an idea: ban nuclear decay batteries on mass transport. So a bunch of travellers all have to throw away their nuclear decay batteries at the checkpoint.

Into a trash can.

The same trash can.

Hey, is it getting hot in here?

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[mi]

Why should they be automatically banned, unless they also pose a high fire-risk?

I don't think a fire-risk posed by some lithium batteries justifies a blanket ban on all of them. The more potent ones will store (much) more energy inside and thus there is an even higher chance, that some bureaucrat at TSA will decide to ban them too.

Unfortunately, this sort of decision can be taken by the Executive branch alone without any debate or even any meaningful prior notice. The ban we are discussing goes into effect in 3 days, for example...

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[Kaenneth]

USB would be nice, so I could use my George Foreman USB iGrill in flight.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/looflirpa/igrill.shtml

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[swillden]

I suspect there will be an energy source on the plane you can plug into. So you could store your battery appropriately.

(a) The article says there are tighter restrictions on batteries in checked luggage than in carry-ons.

(b) Anything that makes me have to check luggage sucks. I hate checking luggage. The *only* time I check luggage is when I'm going diving, because there's no way to get my SCUBA gear into a carry on (and I dislike renting life support equipment even more than checking luggage).

Re:More potent batteries are coming...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

But the thing is, lithium ion, and especially lithium polymer, are more of a fire risk compared to other common cell types from what I've read. It's not just the energy inside, it's the way it comes out when something goes wrong. I'm not saying I support the ban, but I don't see how this is a slippery slope for banning new cell technologies.

Bass Ackwards

[Quila]

The TSA seems to be able to implement all sorts of insane, useless rules on a moment's notice.

But when it comes to a rule that averts something that actually has a reasonable chance of endangering a flight, they wait months after the hazard was known to the whole world before taking any action.

Re:Bass Ackwards

[mikelieman]

Consider for a moment, that the rules are only there to provide a metric, which is easily manipulable.

In this case, the TSA grades itself on "Number of items intercepted".

So by adding an entire class of items which can be taken away from fliers, they are enabling their ability to say, "We've INCREASED our effectiveness, we took away 10% *more* this quarter than previously. Give us more money."

How low... can you go?!!!

[Nexus7]

Maybe they want to see what they can make us do. They said one time you couldn't carry water bottles on-board. Then you could carry them on as long as they were purchased after the security check. I don't know what it is now... then they said that cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, etc. containing liquids had to be less that 4 oz and all of them had to fit in a quart bag, my sizes might be off, but something like that. Why quart size? Maybe it's a carefully determined threshold, above which everyone is still resentful, but not so much that they'd protest. Or maybe they made it up, as long as they were making stuff up anyway. Or maybe the water-boarded guy said they had a plot to use 2 quart bags.. then they water-boarded him some more and he said one-and-a-half qt bags; so they decided they'd allow only 1 qt bags so that the evil ones did have anything to blow up. Now it's 1 spare battery (or whatever number). I suppose we hear that and go, hey, they allow a spare, and that's good around. I mean, who needs a hundred spares anyway? And so we accept one more thing, more or less unquestioningly.

I know this sounds like a slippery slope argument, but this stuff is being made up as we go along. They got the idiot shoe guy trying to light a match, so they said we've got to take our shoes off and run them through the machines. I mean, this could go on ad infinitum.

Re:How low... can you go?!!!

[khallow]

Why quart size? Maybe it's a carefully determined threshold, above which everyone is still resentful, but not so much that they'd protest. As I understand, it's a threshhold above which explosives can potentially destroy the plane. But you're free to continue thinking that.

Re:How low... can you go?!!!

[Creepy Crawler]

Fine. Let me get my pound of thermite and magnesium igniter mixture and burn a hole through the plane.

What puts out thermite? Nothing.

Oh, that's right. People are dangerous. Aluminum and rust are not.

Chuck Norris

[Anonymous Coward]

With the TSA so worried about people bringing possible weapons onto planes, I can help but wonder, how does Chuck Norris fly?

Re:Chuck Norris

[eclectro]

I can help but wonder, how does Chuck Norris fly? He roundhouse kicks the TSA agent giving him a hassle.

Re:Chuck Norris

[Anonymous Coward]

I can help but wonder, how does Chuck Norris fly?

He stares down gravity.

Re:Chuck Norris

[greg1104]

Chuck Norris doesn't fly on planes. He jumps and roundhouse kicks the world, and when it's spun underneath him to his destination he lands.

Re:Why

[Altus]

I can understand the "no ckecked batteries" part of this but the restrictions on carry on batteries could be a real issue for some people. Im going to japan in a few months and I would like to bring at least one extra laptop battery just for the flight. Im not even a battery heavy traveler like a photographer might be.

So let me get this straight...

[Se7enLC]

I can't walk through an airport with a trenchcoat lined with batteries and claim that "All tech men carry batteries"?

Re:Um.... Only Regular Lithium Batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

honestly, if you find the quoted material so hard to understand i'm guessing that it's not the current administration that is the problem. or do you find it cute to be among the other blabbering idiots on here who have a reading comprehension problem?

The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[sm62704]

Page 37:

To blow up an airplane

1. obtain lithium battery
   
2. board aircraft with battery
   
3. Wait until airborn at 30,000 ft
   
4. Short out terminals
   
5. Hold under shoe
   
6. ???????????
   
7. 48 virgins are yours! Enjoy!

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[zakezuke]

48 virgins are yours! Enjoy! What they don't tell you is the 48 virgins are comic book geeks, furry geeks, con geeks, pretty much anyone who couldn't get laid in real life.

Please enjoy your virgins.

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[WestCoastJTF]

48? Who gets the other 24?

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[Anonymous Coward]

48 virgins are yours! Enjoy! Normally it's 72 virgins. You're being ripped off.

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[evilviper]

Actually, I had a better idea.

In every airplane I've seen, they have electrical plugs in the bathroom for things like electric razors. Of course the bathroom sinks also offer a practically unlimited supply of water.

1. Design an airtight container, something like a large balloon.
2. Install electrodes in container, connecting to a plug.
3. Board airplane with container.
4. At altitude, go to bathroom with container.
5. Fill container with water, seal shut, and plug-in.
6. Wait.
7. Ignite hydrogen bomb.

Since we'll never eliminate electricity on an airplane (eg. cabin lights), we must not allow water on-board commercial flights. No bathrooms, no drinks of any kind, etc. In fact, since humans are 70% water, we really can't let them on commercial flights, either. They even leak on a regular basis.

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[PPH]

48? Who gets the other 24?

The IRS. If you're in the 33% tax bracket, that is.

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[sm62704]

At my age the cloisest I'll ever come to doing a virgin is sticking it in farther than anybody else's has been. I mean, since I'm not a Muslim.

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[sm62704]

If I was a Muslin I would be. Of course, if I was a muslim I'd have gotten the number right. Actually shouldn't that be 42?

Re:The TSA found the terrorist instruction manual

[sm62704]

I'm in the wrong line of work! How does one go about becoming a tax collector?

You people still fly?? Amazing..

[the_rajah]

I last flew on 9-10-2001. Yes, the day before the infamous 9-11, from Laguardia. It's not the terrorists, it's the hassle that dissuaded me from flying after that. I don't need to travel internationally and, since I'm in the middle of the country, it's not too bad to drive anywhere. Washington in a day, Florida in a day and a half, Phoenix or Vegas in two.

Re:You people still fly?? Amazing..

[PhilTheRed]

As long as you define anywhere as the small sliver of the globe called the US. Me? I get on a plane about once a month. Its a pain, but it's worth it.

Re:You people still fly?? Amazing..

[cliffski]

I haven't been to the USA since 9/11. I had a one hour stopover on the way to central America, and that was bad enough. maybe 70% of the people USA customs people talk to each day are on holiday. These guys are basically the marketing dept of the USA, the first people and last people we see on our holidays in your country, and they make everyone feel like a criminal. I've only ever been fingerprinted once, and its when my holiday flight involved a stopover in the USA. I wasn't even leaving the airport. Most people will remember this as a negative point in their holiday memories, and every stupid rule means US businesses have to work that much harder to compensate for it and make people want to visit the USA again.

I'm not sure how badly tourism to the US has been hit by all this, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of the effect is hidden right now because of the weak dollar. There are still people like me, who would love to go back to yosemite and vegas, especially now its dirt cheap with UK currency, but are severely put off by all this crap.
Bah.

Very vague information

[amper]

What really bothers me about this is that the info page from the TSA provides only very vague information concerning exactly what is or is not permitted, and the rules seem to be defined so poorly as to beg for inadvertent violation of the rules by passengers as well as violation of passengers' rights by overzealous security personnel.

There is no distinction made between non-rechargeable and rechargeable batteries. This may be for a good reason, but the TSA page seems to refer primarily to rechargeable batteries.

• Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.
  
• You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below.
  
• For a lithium metal battery, whether installed in a device or carried as a spare, the limit on lithium content is 2 grams of lithium metal per battery.
  
• Almost all consumer-type lithium metal batteries are below 2 grams of lithium metal. But if you are unsure, contact the manufacturer!

Note the specification of the word "aggregate" in the second item. That word doesn't appear in the first item. Does that mean I can bring *any number* of batteries that have an individual lithium content of less than 8-grams?

Note the specification of "lithium metal battery" in the third and fourth items. This term does not appear in either of the first or second items. The first and second items refer to "lithium ion batteries". What is the distinction between a "lithium ion battery" and a "lithium metal battery"? Even worse, in the second item, the term "lithium ion battery" is only referred to as an example. The operative phrase only says "up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold".

Can anyone cite the relevant regulations rather than this public info disaster?

Re:Very vague information

[facetiousprogrammer]

Does it mean I can't travel with 2 laptops?

Re:Very vague information

[Anonymous Coward]

Note the specification of the word "aggregate" in the second item. That word doesn't appear in the first item. Does that mean I can bring *any number* of batteries that have an individual lithium content of less than 8-grams?

No, it means you can bring any number of batteries that individually have an equivalent lithium content of less than 8 grams.

Note the specification of "lithium metal battery" in the third and fourth items. This term does not appear in either of the first or second items. The first and second items refer to "lithium ion batteries". What is the distinction between a "lithium ion battery" and a "lithium metal battery"?

The distinction is that they are totally different battery technologies.
Lithium-ion batteries are rechargable and used in things like cell phones and laptops.
Lithium metal batteries are not rechargeable and are used in things like watches and battery backup for your the BIOS settings in your computer.

Re:Very vague information

[Phil Karn]

"What is the distinction between a "lithium ion battery" and a "lithium metal battery"?"

Read the announcements and you'll see them clearly explaining the distinction. Lithium ion batteries are rechargeable. Lithium metal batteries are primary (nonrechargeable).

The hazards are distinctly different. Lithium metal is obviously reactive with water, and flammable metal fires are notoriously hard to extinguish. Lithium ion batteries are hazardous because of the *other* materials in the cell: the (flammable) organic electrolyte and the cobalt dioxide in the cathode. Cobalt dioxide is a good oxidizer.

Lithium battery fires have occurred on aircraft so it is not an imaginary concern. The question is how to maximize the benefit with the least hassle to the public. The one aspect of the new rules that makes little sense is the prohibition on spare batteries in checked luggage. What matters is whether the battery terminals are properly insulated, and there are better ways to accomplish this than putting it in the device it powers.

Hopefully there will soon be "approved" battery containers that will count as a "device" for the purposes of the checked luggage rule.

Re:Very vague information

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read all of that I came to the same conclusions. It seems that if your batteries are below 8 grams, you can carry as many as you want. The '2 spare' limit is only for batteries between 8-25 grams. At least that's how I read it.

The problem I have, as you pointed out, is that I doubt TSA screeners are going to have a clue about the very specific rules as this has been outlined. Even thought I want to take 8 of my 4 gram batteries with me on the plane, they are going to tell me I can only have 2. Not going to make my day...

I'm going to DFW airport next week to speak with the TSA in person and get to the bottom of this.

Exit row seats

[Harmonious Botch]

The last flight I was on wanted a $30 premium for the exit row seat... Thirty dollars is a deal for us tall people. Which airline was that?

Re:Exit row seats

[Fanboys_Suck_Dick]

Fly Delta and you can get those seats at no additional charge.

Re:Exit row seats

[cptdondo]

Humph....

Last I flew Delta, they didn't even offer the chance to buy food.... On a 5 hour flight. No snack, no food, no movie....

Crap. Me, I want the TGV, Shinkansen (with the cute blue uniformed snack girl), or the German equivalent.

Worry or Don't Worry?

[madsheep]

Well I am not sure whether people should worry much about this. Why you ask? Well the TSA folks generally aren't that bright. This means one of two things will happen.

1) The TSA agents won't know what a Lithium battery is and people that have extra batteries won't be affected - should they forget about or ignore the rule.

2) The TSA agent won't know what a Lithium battery is and people that don't have Lithium batteries will have them confiscated/removed because they are idiots.

Which one is more likely and should we worry in either case? :D

If humans are involved

[Phoenix666]

there's no sure-fire way to 100% guarantee nothing will happen on an airplane. A person could shove several pounds of semtec up their ass and detonate it that way. Or they could always do the good 'ole 12 Monkeys and infect themselves with Ebola before getting on the flight.

What the TSA and government in general should seriously consider is that, by pulling this kind of nonsense, they teach normally law-abiding citizens that the government is a more serious and pervasive threat to their freedom than any two-bit terrorist ever could be.

Re:If humans are involved

[geekoid]

Or shoot one down as it lifts off, or is about to land.

Re:Why

[jdhutchins]

Read the rules- you'll be fine.

The TSA amazes me

[adsl]

No spare Lithium batteries, because they are dangerous.OK. Meantime aircraft wiring still can and does go thru a plane's fuel tanks and as the fuel is used up a highly flammable gas surrounds such wiring. The Fix? A comparatively cheap and reusable cylinder of inert gas which fills the emptying tank and reduces the possibility of sparks causing explosions to zero. Has any TSA or other regulator mandated such a quick and easy fix? Nope, they regulate batteries instead...... Where is the prioritizing?

You are 100% wrong

[Kohath]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

They are not. Read the article. This will only affect people with more than 2 large spare batteries or who want to carry really large spare batteries.

For everyone else, you just can't check a bag with spare batteries. You can carry it on.

Why do you have to go nuts about something so minor?

Re:You are 100% wrong

[slashname3]

Looks like you have been reading /. long enough to know that very few people read the actual article. It is much more efficient to just start commenting based on the really bad synopsis provided. Don't try and bring some sanity back to /.

Re:You are 100% wrong

[Kohath]

You'd think people would stop going nuts over nothing. Or that other people would stop listening to the hysterical rantings of the folks who went nuts. But it seems to be trending in the opposite direction.

It's a conspiracy

[Dracil]

They aren't getting enough funding. The confiscated batteries will be sold back to you on Ebay.

Re:For reference, lithium content of non-rechargea

[Rob the Bold]

as per Energizer technical data PDF's

So compliance should be simple and painless. We can just carry datasheets for our batteries, and show them to the TSA knuckledraggers when they demand to know the mass equivalent of elemental lithium contained therein.

Need the TSA to explain it, Nutrition-Facts-style

[Killer Eye]

Rulemakers like the TSA need to be forced to explain the rationales for every decision.

But, before they're allowed to get all legalese on us, there should also be a brevity requirement. Like the Nutrition Facts on the side of your average can of soup, probably one of the best examples I can think of where a government requirement *didn't* turn into 4 paragraphs of fine print, but rather is presented in a way Joe Sixpack can understand.

I'd like to see something like:
TSA Security Facts
--------------
Restriction: No lithium batteries.
Applies to Flights: International
Rationale: We don't have a clue but we read something bad about them in Newsweek.
Since: 2007
Terrorist Plots Known to Use This Method: 0

Control NOT Security

[sciop101]

The USA is a controlled society!

The control began in the early '60s. Metal detectors, seatbelts, emission standards,...

Air passengers have current identification, remove shoes, and carry their 3oz containers in one quart-sized ziplock bag.

In the 21st Century, Obedience is Patriotic!

Re:Control NOT Security

[geekoid]

Wow, you are really wrong.

" seatbelts, emission standards,..."

both those were opposed by the government and the respective industries.

It's is not about control. If it is it has been implemented horrible. It's about an irrational response and ignorant people making security decisions.

Re:Control NOT Security

[Sciros]

Hey by all means disobey the seatbelt regulations bud, I'm not gonna get on your case about it. Please disobey it, also disobey some speed limits while you're at it for good measure.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

...and that won't be a problem unless you have a >300Wh spare battery for your laptop. (You don't.)

For the record... it's not a TSA rule

[bleh-of-the-huns]

But rather a PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazard Materials Safety Administration), an operation unit of the USDOT (I used to work at the USDOT). The rule is being enforced by the TSA, but it was not developed by them. How they enforce it, I don't know, since I seriously doubt any of them (or atleast very very few of them) would be able to figure out what quantities of what chemicals are in different batteries. Hell, even most techies probably do not know what the chemical makeup is, since its not something printed on the spec sheets of batteries.

Just for shits and giggles, I hit up dell's site looking for a spare battery for my vostro 1500...

These are the tech specs for the battery...

Tech Specs
General
Device Type: Notebook battery
Battery Enclosure Type: Internal
Localization: United States
Battery
Technology: 9-cell lithium ion
Capacity: 85 Wh

That does not provide much info.

Here is anoterh battery from a site that specializes in batteries (this one for a HID or LED bicycle light)

Packing

        *
            14.8V , 2400mAh battery pack is made by 4 pcs High quality 18650 2400mAh Li-Ion cells packed by 4 series side by side
        *
            The battery pack is Wapped by white PVC shrink tube

  Voltage Voltage: 14.8V (working) 16.8V ( peak) 11.0V ( cut-off)
  Capacity 2400 mAh min. (35.5 wh)
Protection

        * One PCB (8A) installed with the battery pack and protects the battery from
                    o Overcharge (>16.8V)
                    o Overdischarge ( 8 Amp)
                    o Short circuits
        * One 4.2 Amp polyswitch installed to limit max. discharging current at 4A

Prewired

        * 6" length 18 AWG wires without connector

Max. Discharging Rate 4.2 Amp limited by polyswitch

No where do they list the chemical contents....

Re:For the record... it's not a TSA rule

[Ambiguous Puzuma]

In both cases they list the capacity in watt-hours, though. According to the article, 8 grams of "equivalent lithium content" translates to about 100 W h, and both of the Li-ion batteries you mention have a capacity under 100 W h.

Not that that makes it much easier to enforce these new rules, but at least the information is available.

Then put power ports at every seat.

[Anonymous Coward]

I frequently travel between the US and Europe, which is a 8-9 hour flight. I carry 3 batteries so I can use my laptop for the duration of the flight. My company doesn't pay for business class, so I'm stuck in coach where most airlines don't have power ports.

If they'd provide power ports, I could use a 12V power adapter (which I have) and use my laptop without need for spare batteries.

Precedent

[cgenman]

Obviously they needed to be banned. Lithium batteries are much, much more dangerous than 3oz of water outside of a plastic baggie.

And for that matter, people bleed to death of papercuts all the time. Paper must be banned from airlines. Similarly, Cheeseburgers, umbrellas during lightning storms, and those shoes with little wheels in them must be stopped. On airplanes.

Other things that should never be brought on an airplane include: step ladders, Christmas lights, and Chuck Norris. Gambling is a very serious addiction, and as such fliers are hereby banned from setting foot inside of Las Vegas McCarron Airport.

Thank you for your attention, and thank you for flying with the TSA. The TSA: Drawing on our imagination to creatively protect America from imagined harm.

Re:Precedent

[gnuman99]

If you don't like it, fly with Chinese or Pakistani airlines. Then you don't have to worry about all those nasty regulations.

Re:Precedent

[stuartkahler]

When tossed haphazardly into a bag with some stray pieces of metal, a lithium battery becomes FAR more dangerous than 3 oz of water. I don't think this rule has anything at all to do with terrorism. It's about not having stupid people causing airplane fires.

Re:Precedent

[tuxicle]

Kif, we have a conundrum! Search them for paper! And... bring me a rock!

and their brains will explode on non-standard ones

[geekotourist]

I assume they might, might be able to handle laptop or camera batteries that are clearly marked as such, with the brand-name visible.

What about the spare batteries you pick up on Ebay, or Fry's, that have obscure amusing texts "Do not sunbath to tan battery"--at best--on them? The sort of batteries one uses for long trips (mine'll run a laptop for 10 hours), or to run medical equipment? (I know people who travel with medical equipment: normally med stuff is protected--it doesn't count towards luggage limits, for example--but I see no exemptions for medical batteries here. Good times for them.)

Imagine trying to work through the math with them:
"See how it says it has 2000 milli amp hours?"

"No, it has 2000 mahs. Regulations don't say anything about mahs."

"OK, hold on. That stands for milli amp hour. See also it also says 15 volts? V is for volt. Multiply the two and you get 30,000 milliwatt hours, or 30 watt-hours, and that's well within the limits."

"But what about the 2000 mahs? You're not allowed to bring 2000 mahs onto the plane. I'll have to confiscate this so-called battery. Secondary!"

The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[Ralph Spoilsport]

It exists to

1. convince the American sheeple think that the .gov is actually doing something about terrorism
2. instill fear in the sheeple so they continue making poor risk assessments re: terrorism, and thus support wingnuttery like the TSA.

The TSA hasn't done jack shit to prevent terrorism. Terrorism is defeated by police work and good intelligence, not invading far off countries. Terrorism is not defeated militarily. It is defeated politically and socially: politically through a practice of non-intervention and socially through a process of co-operative engagement. To put it in more common terms: respect others and trade with them. Don't invade and steal resources. Present yourself as something to emulate. Over time, people will leave you the hell alone, because you leave them the hell alone.

The TSA is a crime of an agency, and should be disbanded. Airport security is one thing. Tin horn fascist fear mongering is another.

RS

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

What makes you think this is only about terrorism?

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[supernova_hq]

Yeah, just look at us here in Canada, we don't mess with nobody and nobody messes with us!

-supernova_hq

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[corbettw]

The TSA hasn't done jack shit to prevent terrorism. Terrorism is defeated by police work and good intelligence, not invading far off countries. Terrorism is not defeated militarily. Holy crap, when did the TSA start invading countries?!

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[Anonymous Coward]

"To put it in more common terms: respect others and trade with them."

What happens if they don't respect you? What happens when they don't like your liberal ideas of women's rights, freedom of religion, and so on?

You want to try trading with them?

Being nice to oppressors works really well. Why don't you conjure up the ghosts of Jews killed in the Holocaust to see how well Chamberlain's "peace in our time" worked for them?

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[stewbacca]

The article makes no terrorism connection, implied or otherwise. This new rule exists to:
1. Prevent open ended battery terminals from sparking a fire
2. Prevent the plane from turning into a nose diving inferno because the cargo area fire-retardant can't put out lithium-based fires

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[swillden]

It is defeated politically and socially: politically through a practice of non-intervention and socially through a process of co-operative engagement.

Not to mention simply refusing to be terrorized. Terrorists use the tactics they do because they want to create a large effect but are only capable of doing a small amount of damage. If we just shrugged and went on with our lives the tactics would be ineffective.

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[evilviper]

To put it in more common terms: respect others and trade with them. Don't invade and steal resources.

Right, we should cooperate with countries like Saudi Arabia... Oops, nope, that's exactly what got Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers angry at the US in the first place.

What other countries that aggressively suppress their people, should we "respect" and "trade with" in your imaginary world?

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Right, we should cooperate with countries like Saudi Arabia... Oops, nope, that's exactly what got Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers angry at the US in the first place.

Correct. Trade with them all, and NOT HAVE TROOPS ON THEIR SOIL. Bin Laden nailed us because we had troops in the holy land and we diretly and militarily supported the house of Saud, of whom he is a dedicated enemy. So OF COURSE he attacked us, you moron.

One of the founding father's (Jefferson?) suggested we avoid "foreign entanglements". Ding. Works for me. Bring ALL American troops home. Let the world be the world, but trade with it. Japan did FINE with almost ZERO military. Abandon unipolar empire. Do it now, while you can do it in an orderly and intelligent way. Or, continue "business as usual" and let geology kick your ass.

RS

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[mikehunt]

Not quite. The TSA and other Orwellian organisations like the DHS exist
to make Amkerikans compliant with arbitrary searches and requests for
'papers'.

Re:The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror

[hacker]

Yeah, just look at us here in Canada, we don't mess with nobody and nobody messes with us!

Don't you worry... once we're done screwing up Iran, we'll be walking North to find you too.

Let me introduce you to the Amero, the proposed national currency of the North American Union, of which your country and Mexico are a part.

Re:Need the TSA to explain it, Nutrition-Facts-sty

[east coast]

Here's your explaination: The Federal Aviation Administration has found that fire-protection systems in the cargo hold of passenger planes can't put out fires sparked in lithium batteries.

This was in the second article. I think even Joe Sixpack can understand this.

Perhaps Slashdotters should be forced to read the articles before going off on a tangent?

Or maybe you were too busy reading the other posters who posted the same thing as you and got modded up even though they're all dead wrong?

Re:For reference, lithium content of non-rechargea

[terrymr]

Too easy ... the TSA prefers the use the measure "Equivalent lithium content" which they back calculate from the capacity of the battery :-)

This is why I don't travel to/in the USA anymore

[mmxsaro]

Well, the title is a lie, as I was in Vegas this past August. But wow, passing by JFK, Denver and Chicago in the past two years was a burden, especially with the multitude of flight connections. And now that I can't bring an additional battery with me on board, flying in the USA is going to suck, especially if I'm going to be waiting at an airport with no electrical plug outlets (quite popular these days, building airports without accessible outlets for passengers).

I hope to God Canada doesn't implement such stupid restrictions, or else I'm going to have to move to the EU.

This sucks!

[AaronW]

I may not carry a laptop, but I do travel with a few cameras. I have my dSLR with one spare lithium battery, a small point-and-shoot camera with a bunch of spares, and a video camera. I need a bunch of spares for my old P&S camera since it eats them like there's no tomorrow and if I use that camera much I'll easily go through 3-4 batteries before I can get back and have a chance to charge them. Granted, the batteries are quite small but I don't feel like replacing it just yet.

Being limited to one spare battery for everything absolutely sucks and is unacceptable. I could see carrying one spare for a laptop, but this will really suck for photographers.

not this again

[Typoboy]

That's great. But instead, USians continue to vote Demublican.

The goal of Bureaucracy is continued existence

[Avenel]

Once you create a bureaucracy, it will do ANYTHING to stay in existence. The TSA has to keep coming up with new "security" measures in order to justify its budget. Take for example the lock chock devices airlines are being required to use. These are basically bicycle tire locks for large planes to prevent people stealing a plane while its on the ground. I was very excited to see these devices when they arrived at work. I couldn't wait to see what sort of clever device the government had come up with. Imagine my disappointment when I saw that you could easily disable the devices in about 30 seconds USING A WRENCH. That's right people... our planes are safe unless the terrorists know how to use a wrench. Do you feel safer? Or just poorer?

Security theater

[slashname3]

This is just another example of security theater in action. Just like immediately after 9/11 they put armed national guard in the airports. It was all show. They provided no additional security, in fact it could be argued that they degraded security, they now had fully automatic weapons on the other side of the check points. It even resulted in a one terminal being evacuated when one of the national guard, and his weapons, went missing for a short period of time.

This particular edict was probably prompted by some middle manager that happened to read an article about "exploding" laptop batteries. And if they "explode" that must be bad and might cause a plane to go down. So let's ban them. What is funny is that they don't ban all of them, just spares. Seems like they don't even address the problem completely with the current rules.

All of this was most likely the result of some consultant that needed to point to something they did in the last six months to show how valuable their services are.

Security theater at it's best.

that's what you call "high" cost huh?

[circletimessquare]

one boggles at your word choice then when attempting to quantify the costs of things like drunk driving, the war in iraq, or diabetes

Re:that's what you call "high" cost huh?

[plague3106]

Yes, loss of rights is a high cost. Wasted items are a real cost.

Shall we now pull over every vehical to see if the driver is drunk? Should we be compelling blood samples on the spot because of such suspecion? Surely we can stop a lot of crime if we let the government arbitrarly search everyone's home, or detain people at will?

The cost of the war is American lives; so far double the amount killed in 9/11. So instead of 3,000, we now have 9,000 dead Americans, and even more severly wounded. And is there an ounce of proof that the war has stopped any terrorist attacks?

Eventually the cost of fighting diabetes outweighted the benefits of continued life for my grandmother; she chose to pass on rather than fight. Many terminally ill people reach that point and decide the same.

So yes, there ARE things worse than death, and things which have a heavier cost than someone's death. What good is being alive if you have no control over your own life or must fight a hard battle which you cannot win every day?

Re:that's what you call "high" cost huh?

[lgw]

Freedom > safety. Can I make this any more clear?

I'm totally down with this

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I'm secretly hoping in a year or so all personal aboard any airplane must be naked, including the flight attendents. :D

Headline is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a Department of Transportation edict, not TSA. If you going to lynch someone, get the right organization.

This is a continuation of the D cell banning

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just a continuation of their previous ban on D cell batteries. Some guy had to give up his batteries before he could get on a flight.

actually, what you say sarcastically

[circletimessquare]

i couldn't agree with more

yes: to hell with the sleights and discomforts of the middle class in the west when considering the plight of the poor in the world. if you want to bring up that comparison, i am happy to call that shot. were you expecting some other deduction when you made that comparison?

yes, i agree 100%: who cares about the whining pidlling concerns of the middle class in the west. their "concerns", like airport security, are, indeed, a joke, in the larger order of things

anything else i can help you with today? now get back to your starbucks and your suburban mall. you have some complaining to do about the gas prices for your 10 mpg SUV

you know, real middle class problems that require decisive action in this world

Re:actually, what you say sarcastically

[zymurgyboy]

Airline travel isn't the exclusive domain of the upper-middle class anymore and hasn't been for well over a decade. Maybe you haven't been on a commercial flight lately? Regardless, this has at least as much to do with the "comfort of the middle class" as it does with restrictions on freedom of movement.... something that is a concern to all classes of people -- especially poor people.

BTW, these a rather curious sentiments from one who lives smack in the center of the financial capitol of the world. Do you live in a refrigerator box?

no, wrong ideological tension

[circletimessquare]

the tension here is not conservative versus liberal

the tension here is between being petty, and being real. making mountains out of molehills

being petty is an equal opportunity failure of constitution for upper middle class conservatives and upper middle class liberals alike

Re:Um.... Only Regular Lithium Batteries

[DragonWriter]

So this does not appear to affect RECHARGABLE Batteries...

Read T(other)FA, which provides specific limits on Lithium-ion batteries (which would presumably include LiPo batteries which are technically "Lithium-ion polymer batteries").

argh

[Anonymous Coward]

*my head asplode* ...and that's why I'm banned by the TSA.

What about old fashoined batteries?

[sherpajohn]

Could I bring a couple of highly-overcharged lead acid batteries in my carry-on bags?

you misunderstood me

[circletimessquare]

i'm denying the validity of the complaints of discomfort of upper middle class people in the west

that in the larger order of things, their concerns are a tempest in a teapot. that there are more important issues in the world to consider

so you go on and on about complaints one way not conflicting with the other way. i agree. but what i am saying is that the complaints, either way, who fucking cares. i'm sick of rich westerners and their piddling problems

Re:you misunderstood me

[Anonymous Coward]

you've previously (as in "not in this discussion) written some insightful stuff, but today you're just coming across as an ignorant troll

Kill two birds with one stone

[rworne]

Pick up the perp, moisten his hand and stick it over the hole in the fuselage. The difference in pressure will keep him glued to the hole and the hole will be sealed.

As a bonus, you might get to see a live re-enactment of the scene in Alien Resurrection.

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[lgw]

Do even /.ers get their science from movies these days? 1 atmosphere ~= 14.7 psi. A .45 hangun would likely punch a neat .45 hole in the skin of the plane. That's 0.16 square inches, or just over 2 pounds of total force if it were a vacuum outside and the plane was at 1 atm inside. Of course, neither of those would be true, so it more like 1 pound of force. Damn our education system is depressing me.

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[rworne]

Instead of being such a pessimist, think for a change I was trying out my lame sense of humor.

If you really want to think about it in such a way, the pressure difference at the hole in the bulkhead would be negligible. The inner wall of the airplane is just a piece of plastic with a sizable gap between it and the real bulkhead responsible for maintaining cabin pressure.

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[mpe]

Do even /.ers get their science from movies these days?

There's also the question of where does Hollywood get it's science from..

1 atmosphere ~= 14.7 psi. A .45 hangun would likely punch a neat .45 hole in the skin of the plane. That's 0.16 square inches, or just over 2 pounds of total force if it were a vacuum outside and the plane was at 1 atm inside. Of course, neither of those would be true, so it more like 1 pound of force.

The maximum pressure differential with an aircraft is something around 8 psi. N.B. A spacecraft is more likely to be around 11 rather than nearly 15 psi.

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[smoker2]

You appear to forget one important factor - VOLUME
How much air is contained within the cabin ? A fair amount, all trying to get through 1 small hole, so the effective pressure is much more than the average pressure (pre-hole). I work with pressurised vessels every day, at no more than 2 BAR, and let me tell you, 2 BAR in a vessel 35 foot by 9 foot has a lot of power. You can't just open the lid, in fact any more than 2 psi can cause injury when uncoupling a hose or cracking open a hatch. And a small hole has a habit of becoming a big hole very rapidly, either that or causing catastrophic failure of the whole vessel (ie. BANG).

Re:Kill two birds with one stone

[lgw]

the effective pressure is much more than the average pressure No.

you will excuse me

[circletimessquare]

i just broke my fingernail on the edge of my stapler. this is giant enormous tragedy with high costs for my life. it is consuming all of my attention, and is the most important thing for me to consider. i am not in the least acting hysterical or shallow when i say this

(snicker)

Re:you will excuse me

[plague3106]

Nice to see ass-hats equating civil liberties with a broken fingernail. I guess some people won't be happy until our government mirrors the PRC.

Re:Need the TSA to explain it, Nutrition-Facts-sty

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to add another line.
Aircraft are already thought to have possibly been destroyed by this method: at least 1.

You RTFA, right? The AP article shows their rationale. It's pretty fucking lame the government website doesn't, but hey, at least there is an explanation somewhere, this time.

300 Watt Hours Is A Lot (I think)

[Bob9113]

I think this seems a bit on the cover-your-assocracy side, and I'm just starting to learn about high-power low-weight portable DC (so check my facts before taking the following as gospel):

300 watt hours (the approximate power of a LiPo with 25 grams of lithium - the limit for carry-on) is a lot. It's up around the power used for a decent sized electric scooter, and is a lot more than most RC helicopters pack (the real monsters are around 100 watt hours - about 8 grams of lithium).

These whoppers (DeWalt DC9360), which are being used to power electric vehicles (admittedly usually in packs of three or more for small to moderate trikes) are only 86.4 watt hours.

If you need more than 300 watt hours, I'm think you're up at the level where you already think about shipping your gear ahead.

Screw air travel

[nsayer]

Airport security has become a ridiculous game of "Simon Says," only in this case Simon has a taser and the ability to ruin your vacation plans. Every congress-critter from any tourism-oriented state should be holding daily hearings with the head of the TSA asking for cost:benefit analyses on all of these stupid rules.

Mod parent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

There's an explanation in the AP article.

What is the rationale?

In the article.

Have they examined the potential impact before coming up with yet another new restriction on travel?

Yes, they decided that Yet Another Battery Fire That Destroys Yet Another Aircraft was a desirable impact. From TSA's point of view, that makes sense. The counter-impact of inconvenience is someone else's problem.

Because, look, if someone really wants to bring down a plane, there are many ways to do it even without using lithium batteries.

They're probably concerned about the plane that was taken down without anyone even trying. They're not even thinking about malicious use here; they're addressing a past accident.

I also routinely used to carry a pocket knife with me wherever I went even up to a few years ago on planes before they were outlawed..

But there aren't any cases where someone accidentally stabbed a whole plane full of people. And if someone actually tries to stab you, you can try to stab 'em back. What do you do if someone, with much more frequency than in the 1970s due to today's abundance of electronics, puts flaming batteries in the cargo hold? Do you put MORE in there, to "burn 'em back?"

Flagged!

[cadeon]

Think sodium metal or any explosive really, that is keister stashed until the terrorist gets to the lavatory.

FYI, you've now been flagged and your every move will be watched and recorded every time you go to an airport, from here on out. Make sure you leave extra early.

What you can bring.

[gurps_npc]

OK people. Guess which of the following is allowed on an airplane as carry on:

4 ounces of water.

An unloaded pistol, with no bullets.

Any kind of BB gun (including spring guns), with no pellets.

A putter (golf club)

Any sized Hammer

8 inch screwdriver

A Snow Globe (ANY SIZE)

30 Lbs of Uranium-235 (More than enough to make a bomb)

The TSA deserves to have their head handed them to on a platter. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to restrit passengers from taking anything dangerous onto the plane, simply because the passengers are themselves dangerous. Efforts should instead be made to restrict only those items that have been shown to be particularly dangerous, such as actual weapons and ammunition, not things that someone once theorized might be useable to destroy a plane.

Re:What you can bring.

[Anonymous Coward]

when was the last time anyone checking into a flight in the US was asked where they were going, why they were going there, and how long they were staying??? what the crap, don't scan people's stuff, SCAN PEOPLE'S BRAINS (by asking simple questions and look for suspicious answers)!

Rationale is Business

[Anonymous Coward]

It is now 7 years since 2001 and no airplane has been dropped or highjacked in the USA due to "terrorists" since 9/11. The inspections by FAA have proven that bombs and guns can easily get through airport security, not to mention modern powerful explosives such as binary explosives that could be put inside a pen that would be easily enough to blow a hole in airplane. Thus, stopping terrorists from bombing the airplanes is still demonstrably impossible and all this security is achieving nothing to further the airplanes' security. There is no real terrorist threat that USA should fear such that it could counter it with this border nazism and that an air marshal or a pilot with a gun couldn't deal with.

Ergo, the only reason for all this security is the business and money it generates to some people. Someone must be making money off of all the confiscated stuff and security related equipment, databases, checks and protocols and benefitting from it politically. There is no logic or real reason to continue the, by now, ridiculous nazi-security circus otherwise.

IMHO, fascist is as fascist does. Why are americans marching to their tune?

Answer

[gurps_npc]

The answer is the Uraninum-235. It is the only thing you can legally bring on the plane, and it is both:

Easily detectable via a geiger counter

The most dangerous thing on that list by FAR

Dangerous just to be near, let alone craft into an explosive device.

Re:Answer

[droopycom]

Actually, you can also bring 4 onces of water, as long as you bought the water after the security checkpoint....
You can also probably buy a snow globe in the boutique after the security checkpoint and bring it in the plane...

Actually that Is in the request...

[howlatthemoon]

that you not travel with recalled batteries. http://safetravel.dot.gov/remember.html

Other things that you can find are why they are doing this e.g. flight crews can better monitor safety conditions to prevent an incident, and can access fire extinguishers, if an incident does happen -- http://safetravel.dot.gov/tips.html

YOU CAN TRAVEL WITH MOST LI-ION CONSUMER BATTERIES assuming the TSA agents follow the rules as stated

For the lazy people not willing to look at the actual page, nor the willingness to get through the TSA's obtuse writing here is the punch line:
The following quantity limits apply to both your spare and installed batteries. The limits are expressed in grams of "equivalent lithium content." 8 grams of equivalent lithium content is approximately 100 watt-hours. 25 grams is approximately 300 watt-hours:
* Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold. -- My Macbook Pro battery is 60 watt hours or about 5.5 grams of lithium
* You can also bring up to two spare batteries with an aggregate equivalent lithium content of up to 25 grams, in addition to any batteries that fall below the 8-gram threshold. Examples of two types of lithium ion batteries with equivalent lithium content over 8 grams but below 25 are shown below ( the picture shows a pro-camcoder extended use battery and an external extended use laptop battery).

I usually travel with 10 or more Li-ion batteries of various sizes and this language does not lead me to believe that I will have any trouble because I never check my batteries.I am still concerned as enforcement of these new rules is left up to poorly trained agents, so I worry about losing very expensive batteries because one idiot see lithium on the label and chucks it.

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[Anonymous Coward]

function acceptable(luggage){

  bigcount=0;
  bigsum=0;

  foreach (battery in luggage.carryon){
    if (battery.capacity>100Wh){
      bigcount++;
      bigsum+=battery.capacity;
    }
  }
  if (bigcount>2 || bigsum>300Wh){
    return false;
  }

  foreach (battery in luggage.checked){
    if (battery.capacity>100Wh || !battery.inDevice){
      return false;
    }
  }

  return true;
}

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[BoomerSooner]

Oh yeah, some moron TSA employee that makes $7.50/hour can really determine how much lithium is in your batteries. I trust them to measure properly. Like they did with my 3oz of hair gel.

This is fucking moronic. Yet another unnecessary safety step for no reason other than to inconvenience people for the perception (really does anyone believe we're safer when TSA fails almost every test they are put under) of safety.

America is fucked.

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[jesser]

Are you allowed to bring a battery in your MacBook Pro and a charged spare for a long flight?

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[yabos]

The worst part is they can just take your shit from you without asking. My laptop battery costs over $100 new and I don't want some asshole basically stealing it from me. Some idiot TSA agent stole my half bottle of water that had about 200mL of water in it. I could have just drank it down in a second and there'd be no problem.

Re:Actually that Is in the request...

[syousef]

My wife and I went to New Zealand for our honeymoon. We took 2 SLRs, a point and shoot camera, and a laptop (would have been with a spare battery, but I forgot to put it in the bag and we were pushing cabin baggage weight limits as it was). We took 20,000 pictures in 3 weeks. The emphasis wasn't even photography and we aren't pros - it was our honeymoon and we still had plenty of time to drive 6000km and do all the things honeymooners do. We just take a shitload of pictures and then sort the good from the bad when we get home.

Now she's a nervous flyer and it was her first time overseas. I've been wanting to get her to do a longer trip - the grand canyon followed by the Canadian mountains would be great. However if we go to the US, we have to worry about being finger printed, having our equipment tossed away, she has allergies that can stop her breathing so carries epi pens (adrenaline needles) which literally stand between her and death if she has a reaction. Oh and she's just changed her last name to Yousef. Never mind that she's blonde and blue eyed and that although I look Arabic I think all religion and politics is poison. We're about as low risk in terms of terrorism as a couple could be.

What it boils down to is this. American's have been running around since headless chooks since 9/11. I simply don't trust those in charge to get it right and see us as no threat. I think a holiday to the US for us is high risk and would be about as much fun as major dental work. I can't justify it. It's a real pity.

Alternative chemistry confusion...

[jriskin]

Its going to get even worse when alternative chemistry batteries like altairnano's and others with alternative anode materials. If its still a lithium battery but is totally safe they aren't going to be able to distinguish.

Someone needs to sitdown and do safety testing and come up with a standard. Batteries stamped with the 'safe to fly' or 'safe to ship' or some such get on, others get rejected.

Unsafe at any speed

[EdIII]

I know some of these policies make sense, even if not implemented correctly. The limit itself is ridiculous. They should just enforce proper packaging during transit.

Flying in this country is going to get to the point where EVERYTHING will be packed according to a 1000+ point policy and checked. Carry-ons will be banned entirely. Ohhh, and you will have ditch all of your clothes, submit yourself to the "high colonic" security scanner, and travel in a one size does not fit all jumpsuit. I just hope when safety and terrorism inevitably bring us there that I can at least choose the color of my jumpsuit.

The sad fact is that with the corruption of the airlines and FAA still allowing critical design flaws to exist, that the military itself corrected over 20 years ago, you will be flying very safely in a progressively unsafe plane. Makes perfect sense.

I got an idea... Why not just go back to the way it was before? Where we accepted a certain level of risk to travel. People do stupid stuff all the time like drinking too much and smoking. I don't see how far fetched it is to get a little excitement riding in a plane that may explode due to a design flaw from the airplane manufacturers, Sony, or some fucked in the head terrorist :)

P.S - We had a close family friend die on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie. My position has always been that the airlines themselves do not do enough to protect us. There was technology back then, and still exists today, that could have stopped that. It would cost a couple hundred thousand dollars but would essentially retrofit the cargo compartments with blast proof material. The containers themselves would also be fitted with it. Had that existed on Flight 103, they would probably not even have noticed that blast till they landed. So without trying to sound like a troll, I do believe these TSA policies are just window dressing and that they don't ever intend to focus on real security solutions that could be effective.

Re:Unsafe at any speed

[Carnildo]

There was technology back then, and still exists today, that could have stopped that. It would cost a couple hundred thousand dollars but would essentially retrofit the cargo compartments with blast proof material. The containers themselves would also be fitted with it.

It's a bit more expensive than that. The refit would only cost $100,000, but over the expected 30-year life of an average 747, the increased weight and reduced cargo capacity would have an additional cost of around $10,000,000.

Re:Unsafe at any speed

[EdIII]

Those are 2 good observations.

The increased weight may be a factor to consider, but there is no reduced cargo capacity.

This is blast proof material. It is just a liner. At most maybe an inch thick, probably much less. The lining is applied to the interior of the cargo areas which does not reduce the overall volume significantly. If you had a 10x10x10 foot room, a 1 inch application would only reduce it by 2.5% approx. That also assumes that you could use that space that effectively. Most likely the cargo never takes up that much of the volume and the 2.5% is absorbed into the inherent inefficient use of the space. If you were to only use containers and pack them tightly that argument might hold some weight. The same logic applies to lining individual containers as well. That would provide some layered security.

Now if your argument is not based on how much cargo could fit into the the plane, but reduced capacity due to added weight, then that is merely a reduced profit margin for the airlines. Those 2 observations are really one and the same. Every pound added to the plane that is not paid for is profit reduced, and operating costs increased.

That is exactly my point. Customer safety is being sacrificed to the almighty profit margin. The government should step in, and instead of bailing them out with my tax dollars, enact policies with real consequences if the airlines and manufactures don't implement known technologies to safeguard our lives. I know for the most part what good the government does is vastly overshadowed by the terrible things it has done for us. The nearly complete transparency in which the government now colludes with corporations to abuse us is unacceptable. Government should exist to create and implement policies that improve our lives. It does happen, but it is in the minority. I am having a hard time coming up with a lot of examples, but seat belt safety laws is a good one. That and a lot of the building codes that exist.

I think ultimately that some reduced cargo capacity and higher operating costs is worth it in the long run. After all, we are not talking about transportation of goods, but of human lives instead.

As for the point of this topic, if more items were required to be checked, then safety would be increased. Especially if the containers were lined with this protective materials. I don't see why the TSA should have to argue with people at all. We are all adults. We should know that the policies are before we travel and pack accordingly. I have no sympathy for those that get caught in line with items that are best kept, or required to be kept, in checked baggage.

Every policy that the TSA enforces that is not well thought out, fails to accomplish it's goals, frustrates the customer, is another setback to travel in the US. I know many people that will not visit the US under any circumstances simply because of the hellish travel conditions that exist now. Were not talking about fingerprinting, privacy concerns, or even dignity being preserved. Just that it is so hard, mind numbingly painful to travel on planes here, that most people would rather take a ball peen hammer to their genitalia.

Re:Unsafe at any speed

[Anonymous Coward]

"submit yourself to the "high colonic" security scanner"

This would be preferable. No need to leave my seat during the flight.

Re:Unsafe at any speed

[hacker]

Now if your argument is not based on how much cargo could fit into the the plane, but reduced capacity due to added weight, then that is merely a reduced profit margin for the airlines. Those 2 observations are really one and the same. Every pound added to the plane that is not paid for is profit reduced, and operating costs increased.

Well, with the new regulations that prohibit any single bag from weighing more than 60lbs, that should be significantly easier to swallow. You're now allowed to travel with 2 bags maximum, and neither of them can weigh more than 60lbs each (or you pay $5.00/pound for the overage). I've been stung by this several times, since they lowered the weight from the 70lbs that it used to be.

If you figure that maybe 10-15 passengers' checked bags will fit into the standard shipping container.. you're already saving 100+ lbs per-container, assuming that those passengers packed their bags right up to the 50lb weight limit.

i'm sorry i don't validate your petty concerns

[circletimessquare]

if in your eyes that makes me an ignorant troll, so be it. i'd rather be an ignorant troll than say that which is unimportant is important

arming passengers doesn't help with this

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF does this have to do with terrorism?

When the battery in someone's luggage catches on fire, are you even going to understand what's happening? You won't even know whose bag started the fire, so you can shoot 'em. The guy who checked the battery in his luggage, won't even know that it's his luggage that is bringing down the plane! It would be weeks later before anyone finds out who checked the defective battery, and by then, he's out of range. You have to track him down, buy Yet Another plane ticket to wherever he is, and shoot him for his impoliteness. And guess what: on that second trip, your plane catches on fire because of some other guy's battery.

Guns on planes are great, but they don't really help with battery fires in checked luggage. Your solution is impractical.

Re:Um.... Only Regular Lithium Batteries

[Kazrael]

Considering the actual gov page refers specifically to cell-phone batteries and laptop batteries, Gov page:

Under the new rules, you can bring batteries with up to 8-gram equivalent lithium content. All lithium ion batteries in cell phones are below 8 gram equivalent lithium content. Nearly all laptop computers also are below this quantity threshold.

My guess is you misinterpreted the quote from AP:

The ban affects shipments of non-rechargeable lithium batteries, such as those made by Energizer Holdings Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co.'s Duracell brand

as saying, "The ban affects ONLY shipments of non-rechargeable lithium battters", which is incorrect.

Not guns, Louisville Sluggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since 9/11, I've always thought that it should be made a mandatory rule that every passenger boarding an airliner should be issued a nice Kentucky-made baseball bat to hold for the entire flight. If anyone stands up and starts any crap, all the other passengers should be able to beat him to a bloody pulp and be held immune from any assault charges.

Oh yeah, and any groups of middle-eastern looking young men shall not be allowed on the same plane together, they should be split up across multiple airliners and there must be at least six or more large, muscular, square-jawed American men (or bull-dykes) per each middle-easterner on any given flight.

I think then we'd have airliners full of people who would be very polite to one another for the duration of the flights.

Re:Not guns, Louisville Sluggers

[ganjadude]

yeah because only middle easterners kill people.....

/. overreaction

[stewbacca]

This has been quite an overreaction by my /. friends. The batteries aren't inherently dangerous, but according to the TFA, the current sprinkler systems can't put out lithium battery fires. IF this is true, it seems perfectly logical to me. Also, the limit on batteries is not as nearly as restricting as the slashdot lead-in made me think it would be before I read TFA. So you can't check loose batteries in your baggage? Big deal. You can, however, bring two spares with you on board. That's a total of THREE batteries (if you bring your laptop too) or FIVE if you have your wife bring two as well.

Re:/. overreaction

[SillyNickName]

Big deal. You can, however, bring two spares with you on board. That's a total of THREE batteries (if you bring your laptop too) or FIVE if you have your wife bring two as well.

See, that's just the point. They're doing this in the name of safety, so why is it dangerous to bring 5 batteries by yourself but perfectly safe to do so if you wife travels with you? Only in the mind of a bureaucrat does that make sense.

Re:/. overreaction

[kimvette]

TSA and homeland security have nothing to do with security, safety, or reality, but social engineering.

make the batteries safer?

[zogger]

"what should they do now?" and stuff. Besides nothing-no planes are falling down lately from this problem- Force the lithium ion battery manufacturers to carry one billion dollar liability insurance for their products. and that's it. heck, make it ten billion, typed up text is cheap. They'd go to get the insurance bonds, the beady eyed actuaries would take a look, give them a quote, joe sony and friends would first swoon and pass out on the floor, then they'd be down in engineering, dragging the marketing droids with them by their ears, and next thing you would see would be *much safer batteries* coming out of the factories. And if laptops (and other do dads and gadgets) had to weigh one more pound (or equivalent based on do-dad) then they do now..who cares? They've oversold and overhyped "lightweight and trendy and oh so fashionable" to the point that the batteries got to be unsafe. There's the problem, along with this constant problem we keep seeing with the economic policy of utter uberlaxitude on allowing cheap low-rent, built from the lamest lowest specced crap imaginable counterfeits from the "manufacturer to the world" nation.

variation on the old engineering maxim: "cheap, lightweight, good-pick two"

Re:make the batteries safer?

[Goaway]

no planes are falling down lately from this problem Is that so?

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/17/1857232&from=rss

yes, freedom safety

[circletimessquare]

as if searching you at the airport imperils your freedom

can i make this anymore clear?

Re:Um.... Only Regular Lithium Batteries

[stewbacca]

I misread it at first two. Shame on the article for such poor writing.

Re:Um.... Only Regular Lithium Batteries

[stewbacca]

Get it?.....I said "two"....heh

Air mail

[caseih]

That's funny. I regularly order lithium polymer batteries from Hong Kong that are air-mailed to me. That's right. A lithium cell (a bunch of cells, actually) checked into the hold of some airplane, most often a freighter, but often as cargo on regular flights. At this point I just want a single, rational explanation of why. But of course we won't get even that. Flying is getting to be quite a joke these days.

Re:Air mail

[caseih]

Reasons due appear to have been given. But the TSA statement itself has absolutely nothing about *why* this rule would be imposed. The AP article does say that this is because of concern over fires from short-circuiting batteries in the hold. Legitimate concerns to be sure. Still, though.

The article also implies that these rules will affect shipping of lithium battery packs by manufacturers. I predict this is going to drive the price of batteries way up.

To my knowledge, the only known case of a battery fire on an airplane was from a bad pack that was *in* a laptop, not bouncing around in luggage in the hold.

Time to get a better power source, I guess.

Next Bruce Schneier article...

[droopycom]

Aww man...!!

One more thing that is going to lead to another Bruce Schneier article on how stupid the TSA is, instead of some interesting crypto stuff...

Re:This is why I don't travel to/in the USA anymor

[NullProg]

And now that I can't bring an additional battery with me on board, flying in the USA is going to suck, especially if I'm going to be waiting at an airport with no electrical plug outlets (quite popular these days, building airports without accessible outlets for passengers).

Flying in the USA has sucked since 9/11. Flying into the USA sucks even more (even for citizens). All though only in the UK was I randomly taken aside, stripped searched and had my luggage dismantled. I guess I fit the profile of a short, hippie looking beer-belly middle-aged man with a bald-spot traveling on an American passport (Assholes (Wankers for my UK friends) confiscated my 1.5 inch multi-purpose screwdriver, knife and finger nail file and I'm still pissed about it).

You didn't read the article did you? You can have one battery installed and two spares. For me thats twelve hours on my Ubuntu+ThinkPad.

Chicago has outlets (I haven't been through JFK or Denver) and so do most of the major hubs. If all the outlets are in use carry a three way outlet expander (like I do) and ask a person if you can share their alternate current :) Use your two/three way (carry three and two prong outlets) to connect both laptops. BONUS, its a great way to meet people.

Enjoy,

Maybe we need bullet trains

[NivenHuH]

If the DOT is so afraid of what people can do on airplanes, maybe we should spend money on building out a high-speed rail infrastructure? I'm on vacation in Tokyo right now... it's painful to compare their transit system to ours (I live in SF). A rail infrastructure would bring higher security and would reduce our dependency on oil. .a

Re:Maybe we need bullet trains

[droopycom]

Somebody is bound to point to a few event related to trains:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Islamist_terror_bombings_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

Terrorist will try to strike your infrastructure no matter if its rail or planes...

Now, the real difference is that Europeens and Japanese were not scared so much that they did impose stupid restrictions on train and subway travel.

don't be ridiculous

[nguy]

Lithion ion batteries don't use lithium metal; when they catch fire, it's not a "metal fire".

shorting isn't limited to lithium batteries

[jay2003]

From the AP article: Doing something as simple as keeping a spare battery in its original retail packaging or a plastic zip-lock bag will prevent unintentional short-circuiting and fires," Krista Edwards, deputy administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, said in a release.

Not surprisingly this TSA rule makes no sense. Any battery can short not just lithium ones. I'm not battery expert but I would think and shorted battery could start a hold fire especially when it's packed with a bunch of clothes in the a suitcase. Regardless, this risk doesn't seem to be serious as millions of people fly everyday and I don't think there was ever been a plane brought down by a battery fire.

Hold fires are dangerous and worth preventing but this is just stupid. Automated fire suppression in the hold would be much more effective but I'm sure the airline lobbyists will continue to kill that idea.

The carry-on limits don't make much sense either. I don't see how a single passenger having one or ten batteries is going to make an difference especially since most of the fires that I read about are from batteries in devices. I guess regulating electronics producers so that their products don't randomly catch fire is too much trouble so it's easier and I guess more fun for the TSA to make up some useless regulation to torment the flying public with.

Re:shorting isn't limited to lithium batteries

[mabu]

My take on this issue is that I suspect whatever technology they use to scan for other stuff, like explosives, might create false positives with Lithium, and they don't want people to know this, so they just arbitrarily introduce this new rule.

RTFA

[SeanAhern]

And as usual, there is no explanation as to *why* lithium batteries are now illegal to carry.

Did you even read the second link? Quoting from the AP wire article:

To help reduce the risk of fires, air travelers will no longer be able to pack loose lithium batteries in checked luggage beginning Jan. 1, the Transportation Department said Friday. ...
The Federal Aviation Administration has found that fire-protection systems in the cargo hold of passenger planes can't put out fires sparked in lithium batteries.

Next restriction leaked from TSA web server

[Anonymous Coward]

The following was leaked due to a security breach at one of TSA's web servers:

The next restriction will be on your underwear. You can have a maximum of one skidmark in your underwear. Such a skidmark should under no circumstances exceed a length of 1.5 inches, and must be exactly 3/4 of an inch wide.

If you have spare underwear in you carry-on luggage it's elastic waistband must not be able to stretch more than half the square root of the combined surface area of two inflated balloons (the type of balloon and the exact pressure considered "inflated" will be kept a secret due to national security restrictions).

Happy hollidays from your friends at the TSA.

IAAP

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a commercial pilot. I've had a large battery go into thermal runaway in flight. It scared the hell out of me. The flight crew put it in a metal trashcan (so the firefighting gloves are a good idea) and I had depresurized and was going to toss it out over Kansas when it stopped venting and pulsing. I didn't see it; I was on oxygen up front, but my crew really wanted to throw it out even though it stopped pulsing.

So yeah, this is an annoyance, but, in retrospect, I think it's a good idea, and thinking about the spare laptop battery showed into a pocket with some random AV cables, it could light off the overhead compartment before anyone notices.

Re:IAAP

[Anonymous Coward]

thinking about the spare laptop battery showed into a pocket with some random AV cables, it could light off the overhead compartment before anyone notices.

I think when there is smoke being emitted from the compartment, someone will notice. The probability of a plane crashing as a result of a battery exploding is very very low compared to the amount of flights daily.

Re:IAAP

[the_bard17]

On the other hand, how much noxious gas is a defective battery going to throw off? I'm no chemist, so I have no idea of the amount. I do realize that a pressurized aircraft is not a place where you'd want to introduce nasty gas (pun intended)... it's not like you can just pop the windows open at >10,000 MSL and stick your head outside.

I do realize that even if a battery went off, those emergency oxygen masks will drop and should give everyone enough time for the pilot to descend far enough to vent the cabin, but I imagine it's not a risk that the airlines would like to take. Everybody seems to be sue happy these days...

Re:IAAP

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a geek commercial passenger. I am far more concerned with the excessive coke, meth, and alcohol habits of my pilots than I am of lithium based batteries' combustive properties.

Re:IAAP

[PachmanP]

The current ban wouldn't stop that anyway. It keeps you from having the batteries in checked luggage. You can still carry them on. It might be to prevent that sort of thing from happening in the hold, but would that really be a danger to the plane?

Solution: Int'l 'contraband' rental agency

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave the laptop batteries, knitting needles, etc. at home and rent them wherever you go overseas.

Should help speed you through the TSA gauntlet.

Feel free to make a real business out of this idea. :)

We need to call their bluff & stop flying

[gelfling]

Seriously. We need to call their bluff and say OK - we won't fly it's too dangerous, too complex, too error prone, too late too expensive and too crappy. Sorry TSA dudes - you win.

Re:We need to call their bluff & stop flying

[petermgreen]

The thing is even with all the bullshit flying is still by far the fastest and probablly the safest way of making long distance journeys. It takes days to cross the USA by road and iirc it takes over a week to cross from the USA to europe by ship.

Re:We need to call their bluff & stop flying

[gelfling]

It's about break-even. Today flying is faster if your trip is about 700 miles or more. Less than that and you're better off driving. It's cheaper and faster.

Nevermind that they aren't allowed to search you

[Anonymous Coward]

The 4th amendment expressly forbids unreasonable search and seizure. I don't see a search warrant every time they X-ray my bag, randomly pat down an old lady, or make me walk through a metal detector. And all three of those things are done without reason. The TSA is a crooked enforcement agency that really needs to be dissolved or completely reorganized.

Hello?

[Anonymous Coward]

Occasionally a lap-top has gone up in flames. Installing oxygen removal equipment in the fuel tanks would be a better idea to reduce the occasional burning airliner.
Equivalent Lithium Content is based on some horseshit theory, because the Lithium in Li-Ion batteries is not free and flammable metallic Lithium but a Lithium salt. The real problem is the FLAMMABILITY of the ORGANIC SOLVENT ("electrolyte") inside the cells with a boiling point of ~20*C.
The electrical energy from the Lithium-cobalt-oxide based cell salt could ignite the VOLATILE ORGANIC SOLVENT.
Lithium Ion Cobalt cells UN transport classification should be under FLAMMABLE.
Then there may be safer alternatives to Lithium-cobalt cells. LiFePO4 seems to be more stable. Cold storage on airplanes should be easy. The ~ -50*C outside temp could be used to chill the batteries. But then maybe the battery will take a day to "wake up" :-P.

No, not against zombies or rambo, but...

[CFD339]

..if you're talking about trying to stop (and/or discourage to the point of retreat) your basic home robber, being shot with anything that does more than sting is likely to do it. If you're trying to hole up against the Guh-mint, you're probably going to need more than this. Otherwise, this should do fine and has the benefit of not going through your walls and killing your (or your neighbor's) children.

If I were inclined to have a ready weapon for home defense (and I'm not), my choice would a pump action shotgun -- probably 12 gage but possibly smaller -- loaded with the closest thing to a stable, non-lethal round I could find. Rock salt is rather appealing to me in that regard.

I am also a firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of common thugs is likely to find somewhere else to be very quickly at just the sound of a shell being jacked into place in a pump action shotgun.

I don't choose to have a home defense weapon at the ready simply because I have enough experience with firearms to know that at 3am, without planning or time to aim the combination of muddled thinking, fear, and surprise it is much more likely to result in the injury of someone I do not want being shot rather than someone I do.

In answer to the questions for both sides of this endless debate:

1. Yes, I am a gun owner. I own a very cheap .22 rifle which I've used to rid my wife's garden of woodchuckery. It lives in my office with a cable lock threaded from the breach through the barrel such that it is impossible to load or fire.

2. Yes, I am (or was 20 years ago) proficient with handguns, shutguns, and rifles. I did at one time have some recognition in the various aspects of target sports.

3. No, I do not believe "The Right to Bear Arms" by nature must be extended to either automatic weapons or tactical nuclear warheads or be considered meaningless any more than I believe only white men who own land should be allowed to vote.

Re:No, not against zombies or rambo, but...

[Lost Engineer]

Agreed on the proper home defense weapon, but I have to disagree that the weapon in question is either effective or unlikely to hurt innocent bystanders. A pistol that fires shotgun shells is just a horrible idea. Such a device is impossible to aim -- dangerous to the shooter and anyone close enough in a 45 or more degree arc. There's a reason that shotguns are as long as they are (legally anyways.) When you do shoot someone as a matter of home defense, he is then fighting for his life too. He may decide to run, or he may decide to fight. It is best if the intruder is in no condition to do either of these things. With respect to going through walls, a lower powered shell is not the answer. Anything that drywall can stop, a canvas jacket could as well. Until technology improves, we're just going to have to settle for aiming our shotguns carefully.

Re:No, not against zombies or rambo, but...

[sporkme]

I have always felt that the only reason a citizen should ever point a firearm at another person or creature is to kill it. The known presence of firearms, however, makes a nice deterrent. When I leave my truck at a trail head for a weekend backpacking or hunting excursion, I always scatter a few shotgun shells on the dashboard. They can take their chances breaking in, but you never know when I may turn up.

don't fly, or use duct-tape

[wikinerd]

"The U.S. Transportation and Security Administration has issued new rules limiting travel with lithium batteries.

Airlines can count me along their lost clients: Even though I'm in EU, the sad truth is that all countries now copy the US, so I'm not going to fly anymore, unless for emergency reasons. I can make up for the extra travel hours by actually working, since being on ground means I have 3G or GPRS Internet most of the time (now if some telecom engineer could find a very cheap way and persuade companies to cover country roads behind high mountains that normally get no signal, that would be great), and the scenery is much more enjoyable than boring clouds. People want to fly to get their work quickly, we don't want to spend our lives waiting in a security check queue and risk losing our stuff by opening bags or removing clothing. If they can't make air travel easy AND quick AND secure (not OR) then I'm not going to fly.

spare batteries must have the terminals covered

Seriously, is there any sane human being out there that doesn't cover space batteries? And is there any user who after the recent laptop explosions doesn't treat their batteries as potential bombs? I always carry my batteries double or triple-packed, and when the laptop is not used I also remove the battery from it. I cannot imagine anyone not packing batteries. Even if you don't know the instability of lithium, common sense says that anything that is related to electricity must be somehow protected from the environment. The batteries of course do have their own protection built-in, but we have all seen how good it is.

From TFA I see that they restrict to two batteries per person, which is insane. No traveller who actually uses laptops for business instead of watching DVDs can work with only two batteries. However, I think they do not limit batteries installed on the devices, therefore now we just need some sort of smart laptop mod that would connect to the laptop somehow and allow us to virtually connect all of our batteries on the laptop (one battery would be really connected, the others just snapped in without electrical connection). Or maybe a simpler DIY solution like putting all your batteries on your laptop with duct tape... I can imagine the dialogue:

• Security officer: You can only take two, but here you have 10 spare batteries!
• Traveller: No Sir, they are installed on the laptop, there is no limit on installed batteries.
• Officer: I haven't seen a laptop taking its batteries with duct tape in my career yet.
• Traveller: Look, that's a new model, it's the new fashion, all new laptops now come with duct tape!

X-ray spectroscopy, Neutron backscatter imaging

[mbessey]

X-ray spectroscopy, Neutron backscatter, and other techniques have all been proposed as additions to the baggage-screening procedure, for just this reason.

A computerized scanner that simply prints "WARNING: Contains >8 grams of reactive metal" will probably give a lot better results than a poorly-trained screener trying to puzzle out a contrast-enhanced X-ray image.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/BusinessTravel/story?id=97746&page=1

It'll be a while before this tech hits your local airport, but I bet it's coming.

Re:X-ray spectroscopy, Neutron backscatter imaging

[TooMuchToDo]

Agreed. Don't trust the user. It should indeed be able to detect different attack profiles and alert accordingly.

Re:Need the TSA to explain it, Nutrition-Facts-sty

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

OK. Do you know how to put out a lithium based fire in the overhead locker then? Last flight I travelled on I didn't see a solid metal fire extingusher that was readily to hand. Using a CO2 one on a lithium fire would be everso slightly counterproductive.

Re:awww jeez,

[Phanatic1a]

Generally it is best to avoid any kind of pellet/shot loads, also you absolutely must avoid hollow points

This is completely untrue. Completely and thoroughly. Police departments, almost to a man, issue hollowpointed ammunition. Why? Because it has the highest chance of stopping the threat in the event lethal force is necessary. If you end up on the stand, yes, the prosecutor's going to ask why you were using hollowpointed ammunition. Then, since you've been prepared by your own defense, you're going to be able to say that you use them for the same reason 99% of police, including the police from the largest departments in the country such as the NYPD and LAPD, walk around with hollowpoints loaded: because they have the highest chance of stopping the threat and the lowest chance of penetrating to where they're not supposed to and hit an innocent person inadvertently. The cops aren't out there trying to be cruel, and neither are you.

What you want to avoid are hand-loads. You want to use factory ammunition.

Personally I would go with a 357magnum over a 44mag for home defense

ObJeffCooper:

The difference between any two handguns is this much: (holds fingers up about a half-inch apart)

The difference between a handgun and a longarm is this much: (stretches arms apart)

Handguns are marginal against human targets. If you're going to use one for self-defense, then arguing over things like "stopping power" and so forth is just so much intellectual masturbation. Yeah, yeah, I wouldn't use a .25ACP for home defense either, but worrying about .357 vs. .44 is just silly. You want a handgun that is

a. reliable
b. reliable
c. isn't so expensive or unpleasant to shoot that you won't practice with it.
d. isn't so inaccurate that you'll get discouraged and stop practicing with it.

If you're defending your *home*, the only reason you should be carrying a handgun is to let you fight your way to your long arm. A shotgun or something like an 1892 chambered in something ridiculously potent like .454 Casull or .480 Ruger puts you in an entirely different realm of energy, and the carbine will give you more rounds than the shotgun does. Fundamentally, it's up to what the individual feels comfortable with, but *anything* is better than nothing, and quibbling about .357 vs .44 or 9mm vs. .45 is just silly. Your standard AK/AR15/HK91 clone isn't a bad idea, either.

S&W sells a 5-shot revolver w/ 2" barrel that fires .500S&W (that's a half-inch diameter bullet). It's too much for carry, but home defense it would do well (of course like a 44, there will be no follow up shot). I think it is probably best for shooting a bear/lion/tiger when he starts eating your face though

This is nonsense. What that will generate is an enormous muzzle flash as the majority of unburned powder rapidly combusts upon leaving the barrel and a mind-boggling amount of felt recoil. The internal ballistics of the .500S&W are completely ill-suited to that sort of barrel length. And it's not a surprise to me that I can't find this weapon in any of S&W's sales ads. It's not even on their homepage. There is a 2.75" barreled version, but even that's completely ridiculous and there's no *way* I'd rely on that in a bear-defense situation.

is a pretty serious cartridge, might even stop a rhino. (nobody has tried)

Nobody has tried, because it'd be just as much suicide as putting the thing to your head and pulling the trigger. In the full-length barrel, it develops just a hair over 3000 ft-lbs at the muzzle. That is indeed an enormous quantity of energy for a handgun, and compares to a .308 out of a rifle. But compared to cartridges used for dangerous big game, it's puny. .460 Weatherby Magnum is over 7000 ft

What's wonderful is foreign implementation

[sheldon]

Rule says you can't have spare lithium battery = all batteries must be confiscated. Not our fault, they say, the Americans make us do this.

Just to be assholes, and help give America an even worse name.

This is all assuming you can trust the TSA

[RobinH]

A couple years ago I went on a camping trip for a week and had to fly there. My father and I flew out of Detroit to Salt Lake City, and among the stuff we packed in our checked luggage for the camping trip was an air mattress and battery operated inflater (quite common in any camping equipment store). On the way out, there was a note in the bag saying the luggage had been searched, and we noticed the batteries had been removed from the inflater... not a big deal, as I'm sure they show up looking odd on an X-ray.

On the way back home, though, there was another note from the TSA, and the inflater was just gone. They didn't remove the batteries and put it back, or anything, it was just stolen.

I looked into submitting a claim for the lost item, and discovered that the form I would have to submit was the same form you used to make a wrongful death claim. Nice. I decided it wasn't worth my effort to try and get reimbursed for a $25 or so item.

Readers Digest did a little unscientific poll recently to figure out who were the most and least honest people in the world. They did this by dropping cell phones in odd places, then calling them so people would find the phone, and seeing how many people would return it. I found it quite interesting that the least honest group was security guards. Of course, this is practically the same demographic as TSA agents, so I guess it's no surprise that some of them are looting peoples' luggage.

Save us from ourselves!

[kf4lhp]

So, let's summarize...

* Batteries - dangerous.
* Liquids - dangerous.
* Cigarette lighters - not dangerous.

Remember, the TSA won't let you have spare batteries in your carry-on, nor a bottle of Coca-Cola, but you can flick your Bic!

Idiots.

ya, saw that before...

[zogger]

..fire on the runway. No planes crashed yet though. Still doesn't take away from my acknowledgment (see, I agree it is a problem...) that current lithium tech is borken from the lighter is better marketing fetish. They need to make them whatever size they need to be to make sure the tech is safe before it is shipped. And if that means larger and heavier, so be it. and also rein in the cheap crap counterfeit or otherwise crap made lowest specs possible bogus products, even if that means skewing with the current globalist business model. I don't care whatsoever if they have to go to full trade sanctions to do it either, better now while we still have a chance of getting back some decent manufacturing in the west. I am not a fan of outsourcing just based on "cheapness" or to pump up some suits golden parachute, because so far, that is way more of what we are getting, quality has become an issue from the past, soon to be forgotten..and that is the whole point of the article, current battery tech with lithium is SO bad they have to put restrictions on it. Ya, it is powerful, also dangerous and mostly crappily made. Like I said, want to solve it the fastest? Slap a ten billion dollar full liability requirement on each model they ship, any company, any battery, that stuff will get sorted out fast, and by making it a universal law, we'll still have full competition..

why dont they sell batteries on the plane?

[extraqwert]

The flight attendants, they should really sell batteries in flight, for passengers who need them. Just like they sell alcohol and other staff. For some reason, they never do.

Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again-BUSTED

[xaosflux]

They've been there, done that. See http://mythbustersresults.com/episode10 for information.

Solution

[PPH]

I don't need to carry spare batteries in my checked luggage. I can always buy some at my destination. The spares I do carry are for my laptop so I can use it on long flights.

Want me to minimize my spare battery load? Then get the airlines to fix the friggin seat power outlets!!!I'd be more than happy to leave the spares if I could use my power supply, but on over half the flights I've taken that have them (and the airlines are more than happy to advertise their presence when I'm buying a ticket) the damned things are busted and/or shut off.

TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

I work near an international airport, those black SUVs are all over the place. What the @#$% are they supposed to be doing all day? I bet the benefits rock.

Exsanguination

[MagicMike]

I had to look up exsanguination.

New word! Thanks

+1

Roger Ramjet, he's our man! Hero of our nation!

[rts008]

Hear! Hear!

Thanks for the mental video your reply caused to play in my head! :) :)

Assuming said terrorist used the old cocaine condom trick, what lube would you use?
If you used petroleum jelly, it would not (IIRC!) react with the sodium if there is a flaw in condom, handling, or procedure, but will act as a solvent on the condom...Bad News!
If a water based lube is used, then the only way this will work is if EVERYTHING works perfectly; my experience and Murphy's Law say to bet heavily against this.

I guess looking at it from the bright side (heh! heh!), the terrorist would not have to worry about what he/she ate giving them the runs or a burning rectum from too much spice!

I immediately thought of an old expression I picked up in my misspent youth to describe someone/thing moving in an extreme hurry as: Having a twelve foot flame out it's/his/her ass, with afterburners kicked in.

But for real? WooHah! I just hope they stay out of my barn with with their sodium spiked asses...I have hay stored in the barn!!!

Neutrons? Lotsa shielding

[calidoscope]

HEI did a very clever job on shrinking a Pulsed Fast Neutron Activation (PFNA) system. The term neutron backscatter is misleading - the technique actually involves looking for characteristic gammas from inelastic scattering. What it allows for is a spatial mapping of elemental composition - note elemental, not chemical composition.

The problem with the HEI system is that it uses 14 MeV neutrons from the D-T reaction and those are a bitch to stop (think a couple of feet of borated water). And unlike x-rays, neutrons scatter, scatter and scatter, so you have to make sure that the neutron shielding doesn't have much in the way of gaps.

Re:Neutrons? Lotsa shielding

[mbessey]

Yeah, the more I read about that system, the less I like it for screening carry-ons. Could still be useful for freight and checked baggage, though. It's really too bad that NMR requires such high magnetic fields, otherwise it'd probably be a good choice for an "explosives detector".

But I can only imagine the havoc that would result from passing travelers' luggage through the equivalent of an MRI machine before loading it on a plane. On the plus side, you wouldn't have to worry about not detecting knives in peoeple's luggage - when a knife shoots out the side of the bag into the magnet, you'll have a pretty good chance of noticing it :-)

reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Didja ever hit your thumb with a hammer? Most folks get extremely discouraged by a wide, bloody wound, or less. If that doesn't work, shoot 'em again. I've nearly gone into shock from nail-gun injuries. I suppose in some fantastic copland fantasy you might get attacked by some tweaker on PCP who is undeterred by a mere flesh-wound, but really, is that gonna happen?

Safety

[conureman]

Loaded long guns are intrinsically unsafe. Handguns are engineered to be kept loaded, and are unlikely to discharge accidentally, i.e. when dropped. Mainly one should develop and maintain a strict safety protocol around the handling of firearms, and power tools. I keep my revolvers loaded and securely inaccessible to kids. I keep the shotgun and carbine accessible with the cartridges locked up. When the lads were out celebrating the Rodney King verdict, I did load them.

Covering the terminals?

[epp_b]

...and spare batteries must have the terminals covered...

Woah, hold on a second. You mean to tell me that I can keep my Li-ion battery from exploding just by covering the terminals? Why didn't anyone mention this before?! Imagine all of the disasters that could have been prevented!

Hey!

[Anonymous Coward]

He said that it could rip a person apart at close range, but could not penetrate 2 sheets of drywall.

Like me!

Don't fly commercial airlines

[_Logic_]

It's not for everyone, but I drive my car cross-country instead of flying. The humiliation, absurdity and inconvenience of TSA keeps me off commercial airlines unless business requires me to travel by air.

I'm a single parent, and the logistics of toting kids and carry-ons through security and around the airport make it nearly impossible to travel with my children by commercial airlines. Years ago, I could have a friend escort me to the gate, help carry the bags and manage the kids. That's simply not possible anymore. Even if I could manage the bags and the kids, I can't bring their medicine, or juice cups to sip on the plane since apple-juice and medicine are components of terrorist plots to blow up airplanes.

I travelled last with my daughter in 2006. She was 4 years old and was searched by TSA. She was separated from me and terrified. Why should a parent subject a little girl to that sort of treatment? I prefer to drive, show her the country and let her watch movies in the car on the trip instead of being *terrorized* by minimum wage thugs at the airport.

What really irks me is that I'm a private pilot. In VFR conditions, I can hop right into a plane, pack it full of all sorts of nasty things and fly wherever I like without any security. I fly club planes and would only have to drive my car to the hangar at the airport across the street, but there's no security and the club is in uncontrolled airspace. If I had a plane on my property and an air strip I would only have to walk to my back yard and hop in.

TSA is window dressing and does nothing to promote national security. It's destroying air travel in the United States. It is a useless drag on the economy, a violation of liberty and an enormous waste of money. It needs to be eliminated immediately.

Airline Security flash game link

[dreamer-of-rules]

There's a flash game called Airline Security that simulates to incredible detail the capricious rules of the TSA..

Just wanted to share the love.

Re:awww jeez,

[rts008]

Thank you for a most cogent post, sir!

"You want a handgun that is

a. reliable
b. reliable
c. isn't so expensive or unpleasant to shoot that you won't practice with it.
d. isn't so inaccurate that you'll get discouraged and stop practicing with it."

I really like points a and b, but would like to add overall that the handgun should be practical to have handy, and comfortable (heh! heh!- LOVED shooting a .454 Casull w/ 6" barrel!!!!) or tolerable to actually practice with.

My personal preference is the venerable 1911 .45 ACP with a little work to improve feeding and accuracy, and to smooth the trigger pull. (can't help it- I used to shoot competitively!), but that is not suitable for everyone. Ask yourself this: Is this comfortable/practical for everyday carry? Afterall, only actually having a gun when you need one is going to work if you have one...not left it at home because of????(insert whatever here)

It boils down to this (pardon to Col. Cooper (retired)): There Is No Second Place Winner (book title by Col. Cooper)

1. It sucks to show up to a knife fight with your fists.
2. It really sucks to show up at a gunfight with a knife.
3. It really, really sucks to show up to a firefight with a pistol.
4. All's fair in Love, War, and survival.

BTW, I am also a fan of Col. J. C., and was most impressed with his Gunsite Ranch setup. Good stuff for those in the trade or interest.

Oh yeah, if I have time to do so, I will grab a rifle first, then handguns and hand grenades, then an edged weapon. But the reality is, when the shit hits the fan, whatever I have available will be used to my best ability. (Once used an old fashioned heavy metal G.I office chair to beat a Stasihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi Lt. to death in E. Berlin; my team provided 'security' for the spooks to bring E. German defectors over to W. Berlin for evacuation outside of Any Germany) and some more: http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=400884&cid=21846580 from further up.

J.C. was right in that preparedness is a state of mind. If the awareness and mindset isn't there, then an RPG slung over your shoulder, an AK in your hands, a Czech Skorpian on your hip, and a satchel of grenades (personal favorite is a mix of willy pete and frag's at a 1:2 ratio) won't help you a bit, much less that custom built showpenis that gets waived about. Someone with the right mindset and awareness with a .22 will be much better off. Hell, in the right time and place, a baseball bat works miracles!

I can't wait...

[jmv]

...until someone attempts to bring down an aircraft by setting their clothes on fire. Of course once clothes are banned, he next step will be someone shoving a bomb up his ass... at which point I think I'll switch to train/ship for long distances.

Re:awww jeez,

[OrangeTide]

So I said: "Personally I would go with a 357magnum over a 44mag for home defense"

and then you go on a mild rant about it being intellectual masturbation. But then say something interesting

a. reliable
b. reliable
c. isn't so expensive or unpleasant to shoot that you won't practice with it.
d. isn't so inaccurate that you'll get discouraged and stop practicing with it.

Well we know that all well built revolvers are incredibly reliable. so yea. both 357 and 44 are go to in that respect. 357mag is about 2/3rd the price of 44mag to shoot. and 38spl(fits in a 357) is about 1/2 the price of 44spl. Also 357 is a lot easier to handle in terms or recoil and weight than a 44. a 44 is a real big mean gun for dirty harry types, there is a certain romance to it. but it's not a practical choice for most people. And the ballistics of 357 are highly desirable, although the difference is not significant because the accuracy has most to do with the shooter than the gun or ammo. (assuming you aren't shooting with garbage).

In fact, my reasons for choosing 357 over 44 are exactly in line with your list. So what are you ranting about? If you want ultimate ease and simplicity and "stopping power" a pump action shotgun is an incredibly popular choice. and you can mount a nice bright light on it the accessory rail.

This is nonsense. What that will generate is an enormous muzzle flash as the majority of unburned powder rapidly combusts upon leaving the barrel and a mind-boggling amount of felt recoil. The internal ballistics of the .500S&W are completely ill-suited to that sort of barrel length. And it's not a surprise to me that I can't find this weapon in any of S&W's sales ads. It's not even on their homepage. There is a 2.75" barreled version, but even that's completely ridiculous and there's no *way* I'd rely on that in a bear-defense situation.

Yes. you're right, it's 2.75" not 2".. I was mistaken. But I have heard no complaints of muzzleflash and unburnt powder. You realize we don't use slow burning black powder in cartridges anymore, there are a variety of different powders for different tasks. That's what hand loading is about, you can burn fast and get the maximum pressure out of those short barrels if you really really want to.

Many people have used snubbies for bear and moose defense successfully, I think you're just shooting from the hip on your complaints with little thought put into it. I personally dislike snubbies because they feel unbalanced to me, but I don't poo-poo them because of a misconceptions of how a gun works. Feel free to search for measured muzzle velocities of some .500 and .44 snubbies, are they below the velocity of a full length barrel? Yes, but you'll notice some really short snubbies shooting only 90-95% of the muzzle velocity. Which I think is perfectly acceptable. I don't think you're going to end up only making a bear 95% dead.

the 500 is a nearly mythic handgun cartridge. obviously it's way underpowered compared to all my rifles (except the 22LR). But if you're looking for a backup for your rifle in the safari, it's in an interesting possibility. And a rifle is extremely problematic in a bear attack because you can get tied up in it if the bear is on top of you. The bears you can see from a ways a way are almost never the problem. 44mag being the most popular handgun for bear defense in north america.

The 500 is also an interesting option for pistol hunting (nice long barrel please, I need a sight radius), I could see it working great on a buck or a pig. Although a rifle would be a whole heck of a lot easier and cheaper, but it can't always be about the easiest way.

Re:awww jeez,

[OrangeTide]

Someone with the right mindset and awareness with a .22 will be much better off. Hell, in the right time and place, a baseball bat works miracles!

This may be heresy. But I think people who arm themselves with pepperspray or taser are better equipped to handle a sudden situation like home invasion, mugging, etc. than same person wielding a gun. Because the consequences of making a mistake are far less severe, people are less likely to hesitate. I personally believe the worse thing you can do is pull a gun on a guy and then not be prepared to use it. If he takes it away from you, you're dead meat.

And of course, as with anything, training and practice make perfect. I enjoy doing drills with my pistol. But if I were purely there for self defense, I think pepperspray may be a more effective weapon in the hands of an amateur. Of course pepperspray is not very effective against psychotics, certain drug users or the extremely drunk. Which are, unfortunately for pepperspray, the most likely kinds of people to give you trouble.

What will happen now is..

[JackMeyhoff]

1) We have to pay for electricity per seat in our flight?
2) Lithium ion batteries are replaced by a new tech (fuel cells? I don't think so :) )
3) Confiscation of corporate laptops, which I will hand over gladly and let our HUGE corporate legal department fight it :) (Its the company we love to hate :) )
4) Perhaps water powered cells? (or lemon powered / or urine powered :) )
5) Pay extra for safe handling and storage of our laptops batteries

Things have changed since 9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

Before the USA's 9/11 incident, typical plane hijackings were of the form:
1) hijacker announces the hijacking
2) plane lands at hijacker's chosen destination
3a) hijacker's other demands are met
or
3b) hijacker is "handled" by special forces teams etc.

In those cases it was in passengers interests to just stay down etc. This became a somewhat unwritten protocol.

But with the 9/11 incident, the "contract" was broken.

If you try to hijack a plane now and people actually think you're dangerous (not just some nut who forgot his medication), there is a good chance a fair number of passengers will try to kill you and I bet they WILL succeed unless the hijackers drastically outnumber them.

You definitely can kill someone with a pen, glass bottle or sharpened toothbrush - all these and other "weapons" will pass most current airport checks.

So what if you die in the process? After all the hijacker is going to kill everyone anyway. Thus a bunch of passengers will look at each other, nod "we can take them" and attack. Heck just everyone throwing their shoes/keys/coins in your direction before the actual melee attack will cause you big problems.

As Sun Tzu has said - you should always give the enemy a way to escape. After 9/11 there is no escape for the passengers - either the hijackers die or they die.

If anyone is thinking of hijacking a plane using the old protocol, forget it. How many people will believe you when you say "nobody will get hurt"? Too bad for you, things have changed - you can blame the "evil terrorists" for that just like everyone else ;).

Don't forget - being stabbed with pens and stuff by dozens of passengers is not a pleasant way to die (and makes for an embarassing obituary). If you're get restrained and _don't_ die immediately are you going to bet that there'll be passengers willing to stand up or even fight for your right to not be tortured? A recent hijacker got bashed up and scalded with boiling water - the official report was the boiling water was part of the subduing process. Maybe that's true...

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of would be hijackers out there have figured this out.

It's all hot air

[jwdb]

I recently flew from Chicago to NY and, having come from Europe, I was completely oblivious of the TSA rule limiting the size of toiletries and requiring them to be in a separate plastic bag. So I ended up in line for security with shampoo, toothpaste and an aluminum canister of deodorant 50% larger than allowed scattered around in my suitcase, and absolutely no desire to dig them out for inspection. TSA didn't give me a second look.

Flew out of NY the same way, although without the deodorant.

Re:This is why I don't travel to/in the USA anymor

[Malc]

You think it will be better in the EU? Try flying out of a UK airport: only one carry-on allowed. Not much fun for a business traveller like me with a large laptop and other gear that can't be trusted to checked baggage.

American idiots

[conureman]

I wouldn't generalise about "rednecks", however, the kind of fool that would shoot someone for looking "different" are very common in my area. If I may go on and troll a bit further, my European friends have indicated that this is not socially approved in the old countries e.g. Norway, The Netherlands, and that fewer people openly encourage willful ignorance. I haven't been there myself but it wouldn't surprise me if some other cultures are less enthusiastic in their suppression of rationality. BTW I can't count the times MY Neighbors have suggested internment camps, deportations, and random violence against immigrants, as well as nuclear retaliation against IRAQ since SADDAM blew up the WTC.

Re:American idiots

[lgw]

It's easy, and cathartic, for people to shoot of their mouths. This has nothing to do with the willingness to actually shoot people at randon.

Exactly

[conureman]

More open? More like the theme of their personal identity.

The real TSA press release...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=24e4ffc638ef6110VgnVCM1000001ecb7898RCRD

You deserve this...

[RecycledElectrons]

Those of you who think the government is there to help you, and not to mindlessly harass you deserve this. You can not take AA batteries on airplanes with special "security" procedures.

After NAZI Germany, and Communism in the Soviet Union, I would have thought you would have learned. Ohh well.

At this point, anyone not working to overthrow this government deserves not only this, but a short drop a the end of a rope as well.

Andy

Good idea, appallingly executed

[time961]

Lithium batteries can burn or explode, due to manufacturing defects, mechanical stress, accidental short-circuits, and just plain cussedness. I sure don't want that to happen while I'm on a plane. In-flight fires are a terrible hazard, and they've killed a fair number of passengers. I know I stopped carrying spare batteries after I started thinking about it.

But, let's try to imagine the TSA mind-set behind this announcement. Hey, since we've known about this risk for year, let's make up some arbitrary rules, ignore any distinctions among battery technologies, give passengers no useful guidance about how to follow the rules, expect our crack force of baggage screeners to enforce the rules effectively, avoid any public comments or interaction with device manufacturers, and then give everyone four days notice over a holiday weekend before compliance is mandatory. Could TSA have handled this more ineptly? I'd say "no", but this is TSA we're talking about; their reserves of ineptitude seem to dwarf the national debt.

But underneath it all, this ham-handed roll-out of not obviously sound rules has a sensible premise: if we don't carry as many lithium batteries, especially uninstalled spares that are subject to additional mechanical stress and accidental short circuits, we will reduce the risk of in-flight fires. At least here, we're deailing not with an intelligent "terrorist" adversary (which can and will adapt to bypass the rules), but essentially random processes that aren't malicious, just dangerous.

Still, I guess it's just too bad for the people who were on a trip over the weekend, and now will have their batteries confiscated then they return. At least I can put my pen knife into my checked luggage if I get caught with it.

Re:awww jeez,

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, since you've been prepared by your own defense, you're going to be able to say that you use them for the same reason 99% of police, including the police from the largest departments in the country such as the NYPD and LAPD, walk around with hollowpoints loaded

[citation needed]

Not TSA

[lasdlt]

This regulation is not a TSA policy, it is a policy of the FAA, and it has nothing to do with terrorism. It has to do with the hazardous potential of a short-circuiting battery.

Re:yes, freedom safety

[lgw]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. How is being searched by the government not a reduction of freedom? There's a reason this is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights (for all the good *that* did). The government constantly searches people that is has no specific reason to suspect, no probable cause whatsoever, "in the name of public safety". This is *exactly* the sort of thing the 4th amendment was supposed to prevent. But thanks to tools like you, a constitution proves not to be a defense against totalitarianism in a democracy.

Re:TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for the TSA. Our benefits are sore backs from tossing bags all day. No wait, the benefit is bags don't talk back. Checkpoint is worse.

What they should do...

[Mr2001]

...is give you a ticket to replace the item they took from you with one you'll pick up at your destination.

So, if you leave a pocket knife with security in New York, you can have someone else's confiscated pocket knife when you arrive in Los Angeles. Or maybe a Zippo and a bottle of shampoo if there aren't any pocket knives left.

Kerosine explodes?

[freaker_TuC]

To my knowledge Kerosine was especially designed to not catch fire easy, let stand explode?

I could be wrong, I just don't care about oil and their counterparts that much.
When will I use kerosine in my car I'll let you know ;)

wouldn't work ..

[freaker_TuC]

The camera will probably standby-drain the battery before you arrive at your location ;)

One of my HP camera's has that neat feature of eating batteries au-volonte while in the OFF position.

United Nations

[ORBAT]

I suspect this is just an implementation of ICAO standards. I find it extremely funny that every time the TSA does something, the reaction is "lol stupid security officers."

I'm glad...

[grammaticus]

...that my hearing aid batteries are zinc-based, not lithium based. What is this about "most" laptop batteries are within the limits, though? If you happen to have a laptop battery that is over the threshold, is TSA going to confiscate it and give you the privilege of paying to ship it to yourself?

hmm

[hawk]

most couples that take 20,000 pictures on their honeymoon never leave their hotel room, let alone the country . . . :)

hawk

Cause or Cure

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a possible cause, or a cure to the goatse guy?