TSA Limits Lithium Batteries on Airplanes 595
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."
awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [utah.edu] 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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:5, Funny)
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously, they don't want terrorists buying black market Sony batteries that will explode during the flight.
Actually that Is in the request... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [dot.gov]
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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;
}
}
retur
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
IAAP (Score:5, Informative)
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:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally it is best to avoid any kind of pellet/shot loads, also you absolutely must avoid hollow points. Plain ol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:awww jeez, (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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
S&W sells a 5-shot revolver w/ 2" barrel that fires
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
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At close range it'd do more than piss off a person.
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They did [gadgetopia.com].
Myth busted.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
OK, we'll only allow "Ich luge" bullets.
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Kill two birds with one stone (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also the question of where does Hollywood get it's science from..
1 atmosphere ~= 14.7 psi. A
The maximum pressure differential with an aircraft is something around 8 ps
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.scottbieser.com/sept11.html [scottbieser.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
you can't put packages in roadside drop bins (Score:2, Insightful)
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 airp
Re:you can't put packages in roadside drop bins (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 tra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously, it's a conspiracy by Amtrak and Greyhound!
Safety issue not terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Umm... you want to put out a _lithium_ fire using _water_ ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
Granted the laptop batteries aren't lithium nitride but they are close.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [mwctoys.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every time I have seen Sodium it was stored under kerosene or some other oil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of which will be put through an X-Ray machine. You may get away with it but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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 cont
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The very way you have to pack it necessarily looks suspicious.
Re:awww jeez, not this $#!^ again (Score:5, Informative)
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:Why (Score:3, Informative)
From their FAQ [dot.gov]:
"...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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Precedent (Score:5, Funny)
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: [tsa.gov] Drawing on our imagination to creatively protect America from imagined harm.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ab
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Nicely clear rules, easy to follow...NOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
Try sold on eBay [ebay.com] instead. Seized property is typically sold by the states in Surplus Property [ky.gov] 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: (Score:2, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
Wait let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 cause
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New rule (Score:5, Funny)
Can't tell from the link (Score:4, Insightful)
$1 Camcorder (Score:4, Insightful)
Gotta go, fill out my patent application...
Retarded (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The AP article says that, but the chart on TFTSA website has limits/bans on rechargeables, too.
Still Fscking Retarded (Score:2)
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 [washingtonpost.com] that let simulated bomb parts through.
Is there an event h
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For reference, lithium content of non-rechargeable (Score:4, Informative)
Energizer AAA (L92) ~.5 grams
Energizer 123 ~.55 grams
as per Energizer technical data PDF's
*sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop allowing humans on flights (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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. [psywww.com]
I imagine... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What I'm waiting for... (Score:2)
You can't cure stupid.
Bass Ackwards (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
How low... can you go?!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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 found the terrorist instruction manual (Score:5, Funny)
To blow up an airplane
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Very vague information (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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?
Worry or Don't Worry? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Need the TSA to explain it, Nutrition-Facts-style (Score:5, Funny)
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
For the record... it's not a TSA rule (Score:3, Informative)
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....
The TSA doesn't exist to stop terror (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Screw air travel (Score:5, Insightful)
Unsafe at any speed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This is all assuming you can trust the TSA (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
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:NOT Lithium-Ion, just Lithium (Score:5, Informative)
Lithium Ion too - just not as restrictive (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)