Opinion: Lighter ban ignites worry
Jan 13, 2005, 11:42 am
#16
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: AA, WN RR
Posts: 3,122
FW2M,
I am sorry to say, but I predict that the media will have no shortage of sheople baaing "Anything for our safety". Why doesn't any large media outlet publicize the enormous gaping hole of unscreened cargo on passenger planes? That type of reporting would almost certainly expedite the revolution.
And Dovster, Oregon is full of sheople who will re-elect those with cockamamie ideas that they present as assuring security while flying. At this rate, it will not be long before an elected rep advocates strip searches, hospital gowns, and chaining to seats to ensure security while flying.
I am sorry to say, but I predict that the media will have no shortage of sheople baaing "Anything for our safety". Why doesn't any large media outlet publicize the enormous gaping hole of unscreened cargo on passenger planes? That type of reporting would almost certainly expedite the revolution.
And Dovster, Oregon is full of sheople who will re-elect those with cockamamie ideas that they present as assuring security while flying. At this rate, it will not be long before an elected rep advocates strip searches, hospital gowns, and chaining to seats to ensure security while flying.
Jan 13, 2005, 8:21 pm
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Southern California/In the air
Programs: DL
Posts: 10,382
Originally Posted by Dovster
I am not a very big TSA fan but in this particular case the agency is not at fault.
That "honor" belongs to Congress, and most specifically Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who pushed to have the Bic ban included in the Intelligence bill.
As the allegedly honorable senators have shown that they, themselves, lack any semblance of intelligence, I urge all residents of Oregon and North Dakota to demonstrate some themselves by giving both these gentlemen retirement when they come up for re-election.
That "honor" belongs to Congress, and most specifically Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who pushed to have the Bic ban included in the Intelligence bill.
As the allegedly honorable senators have shown that they, themselves, lack any semblance of intelligence, I urge all residents of Oregon and North Dakota to demonstrate some themselves by giving both these gentlemen retirement when they come up for re-election.
Question: How far does this thing go? I understand that butane lighters are banned, but what about carrying on a Zippo? If not, I suspect I will be reduced to hiding matches in my underwear.
Jan 13, 2005, 11:25 pm
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,948
Originally Posted by us2
Question: How far does this thing go? I understand that butane lighters are banned, but what about carrying on a Zippo? If not, I suspect I will be reduced to hiding matches in my underwear.
(Bic is headquartered in France which obviously makes their lighters a danger to American transport.)
Of course, nothing stated above means that the TSA will not decide, on its own, to ban Zippos.
I figure this will probably happen the first time somebody who has visited the Middle East comes back with a souvenir Zippo enscribed with Arabic letters.
Jan 14, 2005, 7:43 am
#20
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by Dovster
...
I figure this will probably happen the first time somebody who has visited the Middle East comes back with a souvenir Zippo enscribed with Arabic letters.
I figure this will probably happen the first time somebody who has visited the Middle East comes back with a souvenir Zippo enscribed with Arabic letters.
Jan 14, 2005, 7:47 am
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,948
Originally Posted by JS
You're assuming that security moms/dads and TSA people can tell the difference between Arabic and cursive English (or Cher's autograph or just about anything), which I'm afraid is a very poor assumption to make.
Jan 14, 2005, 12:16 pm
#22
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Tampa FL
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by us2
In the case of these two and this particular idiocy, I am embarrassed to be a Democrat. It is hard enough to find a place to smoke these days, let alone deal with the added hassle of not being able to carry a lighter.
Question: How far does this thing go? I understand that butane lighters are banned, but what about carrying on a Zippo? If not, I suspect I will be reduced to hiding matches in my underwear.
Question: How far does this thing go? I understand that butane lighters are banned, but what about carrying on a Zippo? If not, I suspect I will be reduced to hiding matches in my underwear.
Last May, on a flight from SAN-DCA, I had an empty Zippo lighter in my checked - not carry-on - luggage. Not to go into the stories behind that lighter, but it was special to me.
Got home, opened my suitcase, and found a note from TSA. My lighter was taken (can't tell you how many flights I had taken carrying that thing).
Found out afterwards that the rules (at that time) stated that I could carry full butane lighters in my carry on. Also, that I could carry up to four (I think) books of matches. But not an empty Zippo in my checked luggage.
You have no idea how much safer I now feel.
Jan 23, 2005, 8:15 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 10,515
I just read about the lighter ban in the Washington Post's travel section this morning. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard in my life. What a pain in the ...!
Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota are morons!!!!
Seriously, how the hell is a lighter going to cause any sort of issue? Has anyone here ever blown up a Bic lighter? I have (in my misspent youth as a boy scout) - its not nearly enough of an explosion to do any signficicant damage to anything. At this point they may as well remove the headphoes from the plane since the cords can be used to strangle people...
America's not being improved by this.
Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota are morons!!!!
Seriously, how the hell is a lighter going to cause any sort of issue? Has anyone here ever blown up a Bic lighter? I have (in my misspent youth as a boy scout) - its not nearly enough of an explosion to do any signficicant damage to anything. At this point they may as well remove the headphoes from the plane since the cords can be used to strangle people...
America's not being improved by this.
Jan 23, 2005, 8:45 am
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
As Dovster pointed out, this isn't TSA policy, it's federal law. As a TSA screener, I think it's beyond stupid. The words that come to mind are prohibited by FT TOS.
I'm frustrated for the following reasons (notwithstanding the already mentioned comments about Richard Reid, matches, etc):
Of course, I'd pity the dumb stupid terrorist who attempts to take over a plane full of pissed off smokers (and non-smokers who have to deal with the frustrations as well).
The only real solution is to complain to your Congress persons. Congress is the one that broke this, it is the one who should fix it.
Just to clarify something else: matches and lighters are defined by FAA regulations as hazardous materials. Always have been. However, the CFR allows two lighters (Bic-type) and four boxes of safety matches in carry-on only as exceptions to the rule. Torch lighters (non-Bic type) and strike anywhere matches have always been prohibited as hazmat. This is an acceptable mitigation of a potentially hazardous item.
I'm frustrated for the following reasons (notwithstanding the already mentioned comments about Richard Reid, matches, etc):
We have smokers, too. TSA employees will also be prohibited from carrying matches or lighters into the sterile area as well. And as some of you could guess, some TSA employees will probably smuggle them through the checkpoint so that they can light up their cigarettes during breaks.
It's an impossible rule to enforce. The only ones who will be detected will be those who leave their lighters inside the bags that are x-rayed. Even then, there's a likelihood that not all x-ray readers will catch them. Let me put it this way, we're trained to look for fruits, vegetables and tree branches, for example. We're not likely going to notice grass blades. We'll notice a bunch of grass blades but not just one or two of them. Now if we start focusing on grass blades, then the x-ray process is going to take a lot longer than it is currently.
It puts passengers (and employees) in a lose-lose situation. If a lighter is found on you the first time you come through, you will be given the options on how to properly dispose of them. If you come back through a second time and a lighter is discovered in your possession again, you have just put yourself in a very tough legal situation. The first time is a warning, the second time has to be treated as a deliberate attempt to circumvent security. And all over a cheapo lighter? As a screener, I'd rather spend my effort on more dangerous items (yeah, so I open myself up to criticism about other items on the TSA prohibited list with this comment). The point is, the legitimate reasons for people possessing lighters far outweigh the sinister ones.
Things are already pretty stressful for passengers who now have to show up an hour or two early just to make it through security. Now they're expected to deny themselves the opportunity to smoke while they wait a couple hours to board the airplane. I only have to deal with testy people during the brief time they pass through the checkpoint. You passengers (and flight crew) will have to deal with them for the entire flight.It's an impossible rule to enforce. The only ones who will be detected will be those who leave their lighters inside the bags that are x-rayed. Even then, there's a likelihood that not all x-ray readers will catch them. Let me put it this way, we're trained to look for fruits, vegetables and tree branches, for example. We're not likely going to notice grass blades. We'll notice a bunch of grass blades but not just one or two of them. Now if we start focusing on grass blades, then the x-ray process is going to take a lot longer than it is currently.
It puts passengers (and employees) in a lose-lose situation. If a lighter is found on you the first time you come through, you will be given the options on how to properly dispose of them. If you come back through a second time and a lighter is discovered in your possession again, you have just put yourself in a very tough legal situation. The first time is a warning, the second time has to be treated as a deliberate attempt to circumvent security. And all over a cheapo lighter? As a screener, I'd rather spend my effort on more dangerous items (yeah, so I open myself up to criticism about other items on the TSA prohibited list with this comment). The point is, the legitimate reasons for people possessing lighters far outweigh the sinister ones.
Of course, I'd pity the dumb stupid terrorist who attempts to take over a plane full of pissed off smokers (and non-smokers who have to deal with the frustrations as well).
The only real solution is to complain to your Congress persons. Congress is the one that broke this, it is the one who should fix it.
Just to clarify something else: matches and lighters are defined by FAA regulations as hazardous materials. Always have been. However, the CFR allows two lighters (Bic-type) and four boxes of safety matches in carry-on only as exceptions to the rule. Torch lighters (non-Bic type) and strike anywhere matches have always been prohibited as hazmat. This is an acceptable mitigation of a potentially hazardous item.
Jan 23, 2005, 8:52 am
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by TWA4Ever
My post from the previous page - concerning Zippos:
Last May, on a flight from SAN-DCA, I had an empty Zippo lighter in my checked - not carry-on - luggage. Not to go into the stories behind that lighter, but it was special to me.
Got home, opened my suitcase, and found a note from TSA. My lighter was taken (can't tell you how many flights I had taken carrying that thing).
Found out afterwards that the rules (at that time) stated that I could carry full butane lighters in my carry on. Also, that I could carry up to four (I think) books of matches. But not an empty Zippo in my checked luggage.
You have no idea how much safer I now feel.
Last May, on a flight from SAN-DCA, I had an empty Zippo lighter in my checked - not carry-on - luggage. Not to go into the stories behind that lighter, but it was special to me.
Got home, opened my suitcase, and found a note from TSA. My lighter was taken (can't tell you how many flights I had taken carrying that thing).
Found out afterwards that the rules (at that time) stated that I could carry full butane lighters in my carry on. Also, that I could carry up to four (I think) books of matches. But not an empty Zippo in my checked luggage.
You have no idea how much safer I now feel.
However, just wanted to point out that the decision to remove these lighters as well as other hazmat is a joint decision between TSA and the airline. The airline has the regulatory responsibility for securing hazmat. Not that this will make a difference in your anger and frustration, nor am I attempting to do that.
I'm curious, before you submitted your checked bag for screening, did the airline representative or baggage screener (depending on how the airport is configured) ask you if you had any lighters inside your bag? If not, were there signs posted alerting you that matches and lighters were prohibited?
Jan 23, 2005, 9:01 am
#26
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Originally Posted by Bart
As Dovster pointed out, this isn't TSA policy, it's federal law. As a TSA screener, I think it's beyond stupid. The words that come to mind are prohibited by FT TOS.
. . .
The only real solution is to complain to your Congress persons. Congress is the one that broke this, it is the one who should fix it.
Just to clarify something else: matches and lighters are defined by FAA regulations as hazardous materials. Always have been. However, the CFR allows two lighters (Bic-type) and four boxes of safety matches in carry-on only as exceptions to the rule. Torch lighters (non-Bic type) and strike anywhere matches have always been prohibited as hazmat. This is an acceptable mitigation of a potentially hazardous item.
. . .
The only real solution is to complain to your Congress persons. Congress is the one that broke this, it is the one who should fix it.
Just to clarify something else: matches and lighters are defined by FAA regulations as hazardous materials. Always have been. However, the CFR allows two lighters (Bic-type) and four boxes of safety matches in carry-on only as exceptions to the rule. Torch lighters (non-Bic type) and strike anywhere matches have always been prohibited as hazmat. This is an acceptable mitigation of a potentially hazardous item.
Totally correct about the butane lighter thing being the pet project of the idiots Wyden/Dorgan. But the bill bans only "butane lighters." Those are the words. If TSA decides to ban all lighters for simplicity, I can sort of understand that. But if TSA decides to ban matches, then that is TSA's decision/stupidity.
Personally I hope the lighter ban is implemented as described in your post--stop them if you see them but don't alter existing WTMD/x-ray protocol. That's the best common sense TSA can employ with the law written as is. If TSA decides to be anal about lighters or especially matches, and starts full-body patdowns on all pax and total bag dumps, the rage level is going to be beyond just that of disgruntled smokers. And don't get me started over potential terminal evacuations over discovered lighters.
Any idea when TSA is going to make some announcement about this policy? There's been no real news for a few weeks, and in the last news they wouldn't comment about the whole matches issue. There's only about three weeks left, and some people are already outbound on trips where they will return under the new rules.
Jan 23, 2005, 9:07 am
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Originally Posted by studentff
Hey Bart, welcome back.
Totally correct about the butane lighter thing being the pet project of the idiots Wyden/Dorgan. But the bill bans only "butane lighters." Those are the words. If TSA decides to ban all lighters for simplicity, I can sort of understand that. But if TSA decides to ban matches, then that is TSA's decision/stupidity.
Personally I hope the lighter ban is implemented as described in your post--stop them if you see them but don't alter existing WTMD/x-ray protocol. That's the best common sense TSA can employ with the law written as is. If TSA decides to be anal about lighters or especially matches, and starts full-body patdowns on all pax and total bag dumps, the rage level is going to be beyond just that of disgruntled smokers. And don't get me started over potential terminal evacuations over discovered lighters.
Any idea when TSA is going to make some announcement about this policy? There's been no real news for a few weeks, and in the last news they wouldn't comment about the whole matches issue. There's only about three weeks left, and some people are already outbound on trips where they will return under the new rules.
Totally correct about the butane lighter thing being the pet project of the idiots Wyden/Dorgan. But the bill bans only "butane lighters." Those are the words. If TSA decides to ban all lighters for simplicity, I can sort of understand that. But if TSA decides to ban matches, then that is TSA's decision/stupidity.
Personally I hope the lighter ban is implemented as described in your post--stop them if you see them but don't alter existing WTMD/x-ray protocol. That's the best common sense TSA can employ with the law written as is. If TSA decides to be anal about lighters or especially matches, and starts full-body patdowns on all pax and total bag dumps, the rage level is going to be beyond just that of disgruntled smokers. And don't get me started over potential terminal evacuations over discovered lighters.
Any idea when TSA is going to make some announcement about this policy? There's been no real news for a few weeks, and in the last news they wouldn't comment about the whole matches issue. There's only about three weeks left, and some people are already outbound on trips where they will return under the new rules.
If the language doesn't specifically ban safety matches, then I'm also puzzled why TSA is exceeding the standard. You would think that TSA learned a valuable lesson after the breast pat-down fiasco.
I don't know when TSA is going to make the announcement. It should have done so early so that passengers can begin to prepare for the changes. I guess I'm secretly hoping that they're still debating how to enforce this or whether or not to enforce it. But, I admit, that's wishful thinking on my part. My faith in government bureaucrats doing the right thing is very very low.
Jan 23, 2005, 9:19 am
#28
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,948
Originally Posted by studentff
But the bill bans only "butane lighters." Those are the words. If TSA decides to ban all lighters for simplicity, I can sort of understand that.
Not only do they cost quite a bit more, but many people have Zippos that have great sentimental value. I know some WWII vets who still carry the Zippos they got in the Army.
I have a collection of about 30 Zippos and each one means something special to me -- a reminder of a city I visited, a gift given by someone close to me, one I got in the Army in Vietnam.
If the Zippo ban goes into effect I will know not to take them with me but many leisure travellers will not -- and the explosions at the screening points will be a lot bigger than any explosions on board feared by the Idiot Twin Senators.
Jan 23, 2005, 9:58 am
#29
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,725
Originally Posted by Bart
I haven't been able to read the specific language in the new law, so you've got one up on me. I'm basing my comments on what I've read in the news media.
If the language doesn't specifically ban safety matches, then I'm also puzzled why TSA is exceeding the standard. You would think that TSA learned a valuable lesson after the breast pat-down fiasco.
. . .
My faith in government bureaucrats doing the right thing is very very low.
If the language doesn't specifically ban safety matches, then I'm also puzzled why TSA is exceeding the standard. You would think that TSA learned a valuable lesson after the breast pat-down fiasco.
. . .
My faith in government bureaucrats doing the right thing is very very low.
The news media hasn't helped the situation either--some articles have flat out said with nothing to support the assertion that the law, or the TSA, will ban matches, zippo lighters, all lighters, butane lighters, or some combination of the above. Here's the text of the bill:
SEC. 4025. PROHIBITED ITEMS LIST.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security (Transportation
Security Administration) shall complete a review of the list of
items prohibited from being carried aboard a passenger aircraft
operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation
or intrastate air transportation set forth in section 1540 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, and shall release a revised list
that includes—
(1) butane lighters; and
(2) any other modification that the Assistant Secretary
considers appropriate.
Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security (Transportation
Security Administration) shall complete a review of the list of
items prohibited from being carried aboard a passenger aircraft
operated by an air carrier or foreign air carrier in air transportation
or intrastate air transportation set forth in section 1540 of title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, and shall release a revised list
that includes—
(1) butane lighters; and
(2) any other modification that the Assistant Secretary
considers appropriate.
The arrogance of those two senators in mandating a specific item be prohibited at the same time the bill calls for a (needed) review of the prohibited items list is amazing.
Jan 23, 2005, 9:59 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,471
Just think of how much faster the "dangerous items confiscated " count the TSA has been keeping will go up once this nonsense starts. I bet they can't wait to prove their additional effectiveness in making us feel "safer. " 
Boo hiss
Boo hiss