TravelingPeanut

Most recent discussions have been centered around cell phone calls and the possibility of their in-flight occurrence, but what about bottled water, pets, knives and the other items on the TSAs' long no-fly list? Should there also be discussions around those items?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...rules/4648359/

cblaisd

Going to move this to TS/S where I suspect there are a couple of other threads on the topic - calm and civil, too, no doubt.

cblaisd
Moderator, Travel News

mikeef

Sure, as long as you agree with us.

I think that everything at the bottom of the article's list should be allowed, as well as food and liquids in any quantity.

Mike

SeriouslyLost

About the only thing I object to on aircraft is firearms and explosives. And not because I think they are inherently dangerous but simply because I don't trust other people with them. These days, if someone were dumb enough to try something on a plane, the last thing I want is half a dozen people from the LOTFAP hollering in joy at the prospect of being able to "defend themselves" and starting to shoot inside a plane with non-frangible rounds. And that is what would happen at some point. I'm not worried about the plane per se, but the people shot in the subsequent hail of bullets isn't worth it.

Carl Johnson

Snakes

Himeno

With the way TSA is going, we'll get to the point where Humans aren't allowed on planes.

RadioGirl

Anyone who can say:
is an idiot.

Anyone who thinks that the pets-on-a-plane debate is about security is an idiot.

Of course all those things at the end of the article should be allowed. What's to discuss?

[Forrest Gump]That's all I have to say about that. [/FG]

WillCAD

In any discussion of what should and should not be permitted on a plane, the first thing which must be done is to lay out the 3 categories of prohibited items:

1) Prohibited because they pose a danger to the aircraft
2) Prohibited because they pose an inordinate danger to individuals aboard the aircraft
3) Prohibited because they negatively impact the comfort of individuals aboard the aircraft

Category 1 is what most people immediately think of when the discussion comes up. They are things that almost everyone agrees whould be kept out of the cabin, such as:

* Explosives - not just bombs but everyday items which might accidentally explode from pressure changes at altitude
* Firearms
* Toxic and/or caustic chemicals
* Biohazards

Many things in Category 2 are currently prohibited, but in truth, should be permittied (IMHO). Individual "danger" posed by an item does not pose a danger to the entire aircraft, and while I certainly don't want to be assaulted with a weapon or weaponized everyday object, it's my own personal responsibility to avoid such situations, and to be capable of escape, evasion, or response if they are unavoidable. Things in this category include:

* Knives and other sharps (potential slashing weapons)
* Large pointed items (potential stabbing weapons)
* Sports equipment and other potential bludgeons

Category 3 creates a lot of controversy, because most items in this category don't really pose an actual threat, they merely ruin the experience for some people, which has the potential to cause arguments, fights, or incidents of air rage

* Strong odors
* Allergens
* Oversize carry-ons

Beyond these three categories, there is a 4th, which is something of a shadow category - items which resemble category 1 or 2 items strongly enough to pass for them. This is a shadow category, because these items post absolutely no threat of any kind, either to the aircraft or to individuals aboard it. But the potential for a bluff is enough that many of these items are (needlessly and ridiculously, IMHO) included on the current prohibited items list. They include:

* Liquids (which resemble liquid explosives or liquid components of explosives)
* Replica firearms (including toys which could NEVER be mistaken for an actual firearm)
* Replica sharps
* Gels and soft substances like icing, peanut butter, etc (which resemble plastic explosives)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Once you define the categories, you can begin to decide in which any particular item belongs. There is, of course, lively debate over that, as well as over which of these categories truly should be banned.

And beyond the prohibition of objects, there is also a related discussion regarding the prohibition of activities and behaviors. Activities and behaviors can be sorted into the same categories as inanimate objects, though in truth most behaviors that people want to see banned really fall into Cat 3. A few fall into Cat 2, and short of attempted hijacking or bombing, none fall into Cat 1. But the activities discussion really should be separate from the items discussion, IMHO.

RadioGirl

This is a good analysis. But eventually it's a cost/benefit tradeoff. The danger an item poses is the 'cost' side. The argument about knives, guns, or large liquids often descends from "is it dangerous?" to "why do you NEED THAT on PLANE?" which is the 'benefit' dimension.

There are two reasons to put something in a carry-on:
1) It is necessary (or desirable) during the flight(s);
2) It is necessary (or desirable) at the destination and too valuable/fragile/irreplaceable to put in checked baggage (or not large enough to justify checking a bag at all).

The argument about "why do you NEED a gun/knife/full-size shampoo/snowglobe/baseball bat/violin/cupcake on a flight?" assumes that Category 1 is the only consideration. In my experience, Category 1 is the smallest list, but might include:
* Prescription meds sufficient for the flight(s) (necessary)
* Small toiletries such as toothpaste, hand cream, etc (necessary for long-haul)
* Food or drinks for children, infants or those on special diets (necessary)
* Tablet, laptop (desirable)

Most of the stuff is Category 2. I don't need these ON the plane but I don't want to risk checking them. This is stuff like:
* Electronics: phone, laptop, tablet, camera, and all the chargers and cables
* Jewelry
* All prescription meds (not just enough for this flight)
* Fragile or expensive gifts or souvenirs - glass, pottery, wine, snowglobe, etc
* Musical instruments
* Specialized equipment for one's occupation or hobby (Ink's box of tools, scuba gear, photo gear, sports equipment, etc)
* Swiss army knife

For multi-day trips with carry-on only, Category 2 might also include full-size (and wider range of) toiletries.

So the question of "should it be allowed" need to consider not only what damage it could do (the 'cost' of allowing it) but "is it reasonable to allow it?" (the 'benefit').

For example, the initial 2006 prohibition of all liquids was unsustainable because passengers need medicines, infant formula, toiletries, etc. The silly 3-1-1 rule (and the myriad of exceptions) was a way of allowing these things without admitting that authorities had over-reacted.

And it's been said many times here before that laptops, computer cable and broken glassware are as dangerous for bludgeoning, strangling and cutting, respectively, as many restricted items (souvenir baseball bats, small cable ties, small knives). It's been noted that the liquids can be sold airside and provided on board but passengers' liquids aren't allowed. None of this is about whether things are dangerous, it's about the implication of prohibiting laptops and having flights with no beverage service.
Ah, back to the pet question, I see. IMO three cats is too many for one passenger.

thetaxman

I can understand your point, but 100's of firearms - if not more - are on people inside planes every day. This isn't counting any FAM's or armed pilots. They will always be there and if a situation arose, I'm convinced they would not fair any better than the regular guy on the street. That risk is there today and will be for the foreseeable future.

WillCAD

This is the crux here. The entire rest of your post is irrelevant, because the crux does not stand up to one simple observations: Everyone has unique needs, thus the decision to allow or disallow something cannot be based on whether it's needed or not needed. Because maybe you need it, but that's just you.

The decision should be (but is not, at the moment) based entirely on the categories of risk I outlined earlier. Whether you "need" something is simply not a decision that anyone on earth is qualified to make except YOU (with input from your doctor, etc). YOU are the final arbiter of what you need.

Whether you decide that you need a gun or not, whether you decide that you need a bottle of water or not, whether decide that you need a hockey stick, tennis racket, snowglobe, or bottle or merlot, is an entirely subjective decision. But where those items fit in the item categories I outlined earlier is not subjective, it's objective, and thus is a far batter criterion for deciding whether an item should be allowed or not in a plane cabin.

Because, when it comes right down to it, you're not the only person aboard, so whether you are afraid enough to want your gun aboard with you or whether the person next to you is afraid enough to not want anyone to have a snowglobe, is irrelevant to the discussion of whether those items pose an actual threat to the aircraft, to the people aboard, or merely to the comfort of those aboard.

ScatterX

The question is misleading. There is a big difference between what should and shouldn't be allowed on planes and what should and should not be SEARCHED FOR AT THE CHECKPOINT.

The checkpoint search should be limited to guns, explosives, and tools that can defeat the hardened cockpit doors. PERIOD.

What is not allowed on a plane should be defined by the operating airline*.

* -- countdown to Spiff's reply in 3, 2, 1, ....

Spiff

Agree 100%. The checkpoint should be for the airlines' convenience - it should be run by private security hired by the airlines. Searches should pertain only to things all the airlines agree to prohibit. Guns and bombs would likely be the only things prohibited. The federal government should have zero say in the matter.

gsoltso

I work for TSA and have disagreed with many of the prohibs since I got here. Essentially we should have the serious prohibs list (which includes the obvious Explosives, Firearms and other chemicals that can cause problems {caustics, biohazards, etc}), and the list prohibited by the airlines. If there is enough concern over LAG and other types of items, then there should be a way to test those items in the checkpoint. I am under the impression that noone is going to be able to take over an airplane with a sword, much less a knife or baseball bat - therefore they should be allowed unless the airline has a problem with them. Incendiaries, explosives and firearms are pretty universally agreed that they are bad things to have in an airplane enviornment, everything else for the most part should be set by the individual airline. This allows for passengers to select what airline they wished based on their specific guidelines. The current policies on LAG and some of the prohibited items on the list are a recipe for disaster primarily in terms of what to expect as a passenger, and secondarily the resulting PR lambasting we take over it. Anyone that has paid attention to the shift in attitude over someone attempting to take over a plane knows that novelty bats, hockey sticks, field hockey sticks, croquet mallets, mule skinners, Bowies, Ol Bucks, and even machetes will not allow someone to take over a plane.

*Disclaimer - this is all personal opinion, and not that of TSA, however, TSA did attempt to make some changes to the prohib list last year and some folks/groups lost their collective minds over it.

chollie

I have to wonder if the attempted easing of rules last year was proposed in good faith.

If so, why were all the changes pulled back? IIRC, the FAs objected to an easing of the rules on knives (apparently without bothering to inform themselves of the exact nature of that change). Why weren't the other changes (ski poles, for example) implemented?

Meanwhile, medical nitro is still prohibited.