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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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...

$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...

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

*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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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: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: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

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.

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.