Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Denise, NC on September 21, 2007:

The reason for having to take off the headphones (I've heard it before) is the theory that if something should go terribly wrong, you would not be able to hear the flight attendants telling you to assume crash positions and other instructions.

Yeah, like you won't notice the sudden sharp downward pitch of the aircraft!

I notice, though, that they do not insist that everyone be awake for takeoff or landing. Seems like a silly distinction to me.

---

If it's truly a safety thing, then why don't all airlines require it? And in an emergency, I think anyone is capable of removing the device. I just don't see any justification for the arbitrary exercise of power for no justifiable reason. -rc

Posted by Art - Maryland on September 21, 2007:

Notwithstanding any reason the bozo might have stated, there is no *security* regulation regarding the headphones -- (I'm former FAA and TSA regulation/policy writer, and I use the headphones all the time), although a few older models may generate a noise canceling frequency which could fall in that hazy area such as cell phones that may or may not interfere with navigation equipment.

Also, if sitting in an exit row, the cord could interfere with emergency exit - a safety, not security issue. Nonetheless, there's no excuse for rudeness in a customer service job, and you can't fix stupid. Be sure to write to the airline.

---

For the record, I wasn't in an exit row -- and there was no cable anyway.... -rc

Posted by JK, Sonora, CA on September 21, 2007:

I just "love" going thru airports now ;-p. I get out the cab, put my shoes in my back-pack and then go thru "barefooted" or in just my socks. The best part is when I arrive at the "gate" only to be told to take off my shoes (no one bothers to look now) & will get stopped because I failed to do so. After passing thru, I'm requested to "put my shoes on" by the same person that asked me to take them off.

Posted by MK- Washington State on September 21, 2007:

I was coming home from a trip to Michigan. I was at the Bishop International Airport in Flint MI. I arrived at the airport and purchased some souvenirs and had the change in my pocket--a $50.00 bill.

I arrived at the security check point and laid my sweater jacket down to go through the X-ray machine. I walked through the uprights, and walked forward to get my belongings.

I reached for my purse, it went through just fine, but when I reached for my sweater, the security officer grabbed my arm and pushed me away. When I protested, he grabbed my sweater and said he had to check it for any metal. "Hello", I said, "you just ran it through the X-ray machine--did you see any metal?"

He held the back neck of the sweater in one hand, and ran his other hand down the length, squeezing it like he was eliminating any water out of it. I saw him reach into the pockets and extract the bill, and put that into his pocket. When I really protested, up came two Army soldiers with rifles now in both hands, instead of the guns behind their shoulders.

"Any problems"? one asked. I told them the security person had removed a $50.00 bill out of the pocket of the sweater that was just run through the X-ray machine, and I wanted both back. The other soldier told me to just "move along" and told the airport security person to give me back my sweater.

When I asked about the cash, the soldier who asked about any problems, just laughed and asked the security officer about the cash. The security person just shrugged his shoulders, "what cash"? "No cash here" he said...

However. When you tattoo your name onto the side of your neck, and across the back of your wrist.... How stupid are you? As far as the two soldiers were concerned? They were probably one of the first ones sent to Iraq. Good Job, guys!

Posted by Bruce, Honolulu on September 21, 2007:

Continental has started a "no headphones" on take off and landing policy too. There IS a valid safety reason however. Take offs and landings are presumably the riskiest parts of the flight and if an emergency arose being able to hear the instructions from the Flight Crew clearly could be a matter of life and death.

If you're REALLY that sensitive to the noise, just use foam earplugs like the pilot does. They will block out most of the really irritating sounds and still allow you to hear speech. Once safely aloft you'll have plenty of time to enjoy the solitude of a good pair of ANC (Active Noise Cancelling) headphones.

Also, if you're using tight fitting earbuds, you'll find that your ears adapt to pressure changes much better without them.

---

I appreciate your input, but you're pretty much proving my point -- headphones not ok, earplugs fine. Yet earplugs are slower to remove, and probably have a greater noise reduction. "Someone" thought it was a good idea to ban headphones during takeoff, but didn't think it through -- and the result is a stupid rule that goes against common sense. The very essence of what we're teaching our next generation of service workers with "zero tolerance" policies in schools. -rc

Posted by Joshua, Menlo Park, CA on September 21, 2007:

How about today's airport incident with the MIT undergrad?

Perhaps -- and note I say *perhaps* -- it was appropriate for them to worry that her toy was a bomb. But you'd think in Boston, after the Aqua Teen Hunger Force incident, they'd have learned what fake bombs look like by now!

It's TOTALLY inappropriate for them to be cackling afterward about how good a thing it is that she put up no resistance whatsoever and followed instructions to the letter, because they would have shot to kill otherwise!

Goodbye, America, and hello, police state.

---

You refer to MIT sophomore Star Simpson, 19, who was arrested at Logan International Airport in Boston on charges of disturbing the peace and "possessing a hoax device." The "device"? A sweatshirt that had a circuit board affixed to the front with green LED lights and wires running to a 9-volt battery.

Yeah, suspicious -- and perhaps a stupid stunt to pull. But I have a hard time believing she'll be convicted of anything serious. -rc

Posted by Clif, Arizona on September 21, 2007:

I have to use a C-Pap machine to help me breathe as I sleep. It is required by my provider that I carry it on so it does not get lost. The TSA always has to swab it with a sniffer of some kind. I used to leave it in the carry case and they would take the whole thing to the machine. I was recently informed by the TSA they were going to make things easier for me and would run it through like a laptop. What they really meant was I now have to take it out of the bag. Run it through seperately. Then hunt them down with the bag in tow. The easier part is I remove it for them and I have to drag the bag around. It was much easier before and accomplished the same thing. Thanks TSA for having me do your job for you while 4 of you stand around and watch.

Posted by Don, Kenner, LA on September 22, 2007:

Bruce in Honolulu is correct about the use of "earplugs"
(not really plugs, just attenuators) vs headphones if the
flight crew "really really" needs to tell you something.
("We're leaving now in the last life raft.")

The problem is that rules are not consistent from airline to airline. I also wonder if TSA or the companies have an
automatic radio-transmission detector aboard each plane,
because there's also a good reason cell-phones and such aren't used in flight. -- In a lighter vein, I suggest that instead of everyone REMOVING THEIR SHOES at checkpoints, we simply set off a small firecracker under each person's foot...wouldn't that give pause to anyone contemplating having explosives there???

Posted by Peter, UK on September 22, 2007:

In the UK (and, according to easyJet the EU as a whole) there are now heavy restrictions on carrying liquids on planes. Anything purchased in the "secure" area of an airport is OK, but if you want to take some water for the flight then you have to carry it in bottles no larger than 100ml, and all of the bottles you carry must fit inside a single sealable plastic bag no greater than 20cm by 20cm (8" by 8").

This is a bonanza for airlines, the shops in the "secure" area, and even, bizarrely, one national newspaper, which has capitalised on it with a "buy our paper and get a bottle of water free" campaign to push readership numbers and advertising revenue up, but it's not their doing. It's the government's response to a claim that terrorists might be able to carry a binary liquid explosive onto a plane and mix it in the toilets.

As far as I'm aware, no one has yet explained how forcing and terrorist foolish enough to think this has a reasonable prospect of success to obtain a few small bottles is going to be much of a hindrance relative to obtaining or making the putative explosive in the first place. However, I know that the hindrance of finding a few small bottles which haven't previously contained things I wouldn't want to drink has meant that I end up forking out for overpriced beverages.

Posted by Derek of Jersey, British Isles on September 22, 2007:

Continuous repetition of fanciful nonsense about the "deadliness" of guns, by government, police and the media, have created a widespread, irrational fear of guns that is so strong that the process of carrying declared firearms and ammunition as checked luggage can often become a sort of Alice-in-Wonderland farce. Inevitably this diverts attention and resources from potentially worthwhile security activities.

The strict and very low weight limits, with occasional outright bans, on the carriage of declared civilian ammunition as checked luggage is, if possible, even more irrational. Conventional civilian ammunition, i.e. incorporating inert projectiles, in any quantity, provides a risk level roughly equal to tins of beans. Even in the event of a violent impact or fire, such ammunition will not explode or become a hazard. But who wants to deal with boring reality, when a bit of hysteria is so much more exciting.

The true story below is par for the course:

http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art1053

Posted by Jim in AZ on September 22, 2007:

Recently my wife and I flew with our 11 month old baby for the first time. We flew her as a "lap baby." Now, simple physics tells me that in a sudden deceleration (e.g., a crash) a 20lb baby is propelled with 400lbs of force - much too strong to be restrained by hand. So, I put her in a baby harness, one of the ones that goes over your back like a pair of suspenders and the baby lays on your chest. In a crash, at least the baby would be tethered to me, and I in turn was seat-belted to the plane. Would this provide any real increase in probability of survival? I don't know, but it sure seemed like a better idea than having my daughter fly out of my arms like a 400lb projectile.

The flight attendant told me the harness was not allowed on take-off. I asked why, and she only responded "federal regulations." I tried (in vain, of course) to make her see that it was for the baby's safety, but she just kept saying "federal regulations, sir."

So I just waited until the captain told the flight attendants to be seated for takeoff and she couldn't see me, and then put my baby in the harness. "Federal regulations" can go fuck themselves when they are detrimental to the safety of my daughter.

As a postscript, on the return flight, the attendant didn't have any problem with me putting her in the harness. Funny how these "federal regulations" are selectively made-up and enforced at the whim of the flight attendants, isn't it?

---

I think the "federal regulation" she was referring to doesn't prohibit harnesses, but rather the one that pretty much says "The flight crew is god and you have to do what they say, even if it compromises security and safety." -rc

Posted by Jim in AZ on September 22, 2007:

Me again...I wanted to mention something that happened on our return flight. We were booked in first-class, but there was only one seat in first left, so I let my wife and daughter sit up front while I went back to coach. I held the baby (in the harness) for takeoff, and about an hour later when she was hungry and Mommy had the food/diaper bag, so I brought her up front to give her to Mommy. The flight attendant jumped all over me and told me I couldn't come up to first. This despite the fact that at least 6-8 other coach passengers had already gone up to first to use the bathroom, including one wheelchair-bound passenger who was wheeled by the flight crew.

They always make an announcement at the beginning of the flight that the front bathroom is reserved for first class passengers, but in flight, that rule is widely ignored and in this case the crew even assisted a coach passenger to go up front. But in my case when I just went up there to give my baby to my wife so she could feed her, I almost get arrested. More selective enforcement of rules by the whimsical flight crew.

Posted by Joe, Australia on September 22, 2007:

How about this for stupidity!

Veterinary Surgeon is travelling for work reasons. He is told that he cannot take this item with him on board of the aeroplane.

The Item? an "Eartag Locator Pliers"!!!

This item is part of the surgeon's tools of trade, and, he puts ear-tags onto cows with it.

What I would dearly like to know, why is this forbidden?

I suppose, he could grab the airline attendant and say: take me to Cuba or i'll tag you to death!!!

True Story, Qantas Security, last year, in Canberra, ACT, Australia.

(The security people are contractors to Qantas)

---

I was once stopped in security while they searched my briefcase for "something they saw" on the xray. They ran it through again and again to locate the item -- but they refused to tell me what they were looking for so I might help. Finally they found it: a 2-inch allen wrench (the little angled "hex" wrench used to tighten tiny set screws). I had no idea it was in there, but knew that it had to have been in there for months, and I had flown with it many times. The reason they "had" to find it? "Tools" are prohibited, and a set screw wrench is of course a "tool". Yes, well, so is my pencil -- and the pencil is a lot more deadly.

They must make generic rules that even the stupid can understand, and "no tools" is apparently one of them. Ignore the fact that no one, ever, would possibly be capable of using an allen wrench to hijack an airliner. There is no common sense, just a rule. Probably your vet friend suffered from the same problem. -rc

Posted by Jerry, Saugus, MA on September 22, 2007:

The MIT student looks like she is going to get off easy since her bail was so low.

But I feel she needs psychiatric help. This is NO joke even though it was fake. She should be punished. These MIT students are going a bit too far with their pranks, last week an innocent volunteer was injured after cleaning up some Sodium in the Charles River after some MIT student tossed it in the river.

Posted by bruce, lakewood, co. on September 22, 2007:

Some may criticize this blog as "whining", and say that it's too late to do anything about overzealous, inane airport/airplane security. They may say 'It's Over!'

And to them, I say- Over?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Hell No!

So I say, keep on with your petulance, and let's kick some ass!

---

And I say, damn those crazy Germans! -rc

Posted by John, Florida on September 22, 2007:

I have flown more than 200 times in the past 2 years: with that kind of experience, I should have seen behavior such as reported, but to the airline's credit, I have not. I have seen people asked to remove their sound reducing headphones when in exit rows (and they do), but I have not been asked to turn off or remove mine. I have used my GPS attached to my computer many times to watch our progress, most air stewards have been interested in seeing this novelty and only two times have heard an announcement that the GPS cannot be used, so I did not turn it on. It is in reality only a receiver, so it does not have any effect on their equipment, but their lack of knowledge does not warrant me testing their desire to keep control of their airplane.

We never see the pilots, the air stewards have all of the responsibility to see that the flight goes smoothly - the stewards (correctly) do not always see the validity of some rules and thus do not always enforce them, but there are many times newbies who want to try to do their job as outlined - they will soon tire. They have two or more flights a day to deal with, and they have good and bad days as well as all of us.

The security at the airports varies, some make you take off your shoes, others do not, most of the time those working at security only want a smooth flow - no problems; they want everyone out of there, they have to move thousands of people - why would they want problems? They would only get hundreds of people looking on watching the circus! My carry-on has my portable office in it, including my engineer's seal, so I get delayed many times while they re-check it. I also receive my tickets on short notice more times than not, so I get personal screening. They used to be clumsy at it, but they are getting quite professional now.

Anyone who wants to challenge their authority - be it headphones, shoes, or whatever, can do so, but to what end? The airline employee will just meet resistance with intransigence, and you will lose. If you were running an airline, how would you react to stupid stunts people want to pull?

---

I would react to stupid stunts harshly. Everywhere else, I would demand top-notch customer service, and quickly get rich. -rc

Posted by Scott, Washington, DC on September 22, 2007:

I also was asked once to remove my headphones from my ears. When I asked the flight attendant why, her response was that the headphone cord was a trip hazard. I didn't remove them, but simply fed the cord through my shirt so that it didn't pose a trip hazard. I don't think the flight attendant was amused, but she didn't bother me after that.

I share your frustration that airplanes are very loud. I have earplug headphones, which are essentially ear plugs with strings attached. Why is it okay to wear earplugs, but earplug headphones are somehow much more inherently dangerous to wear during takeoffs and landings? It makes no sense!

---

As noted in my response to another comment, my headphones don't have a cord (unless I decide to attach it; at the time I was asked, it wasn't attached.) And I made the same point about earplugs. But the point is valid: no one can effectively claim "safety" or "security" when enforcement is so arbitrary. -rc

Posted by Ken, Maryland on September 22, 2007:

I have heard the no headphone rule on multiple airlines. From everything I was told, this has nothing to do with recent "security" rules, and more with the possibility of personal electronics interfering with flight instruments. The reason I was always told is it is easier for them to verify that electronics are turned off. The assumption they make is that if you take off the headphones, you have turned off the device. To continue their train of thought, why would you leave in the headphones if the device was off? This would then require them to believe you when you say it is off, or check device to verify. On a large aircraft, it is quicker for them to look for headphones than to check the status of every device.

Finally, arguing with a flight attendant is worthless. They are required to enforce the rules weather they agree with them or not. They do not have the authority to change the rules. Arguing with them will just get you both upset (and possibly your fellow passengers) and run the risk of you being ejected from the flight. Not saying that is either right or wrong, just the way it is.

Posted by Jim, Centennial, Co on September 22, 2007:

After 37 years in law enforcement I retired partially due to having a knee replaced with steel.. During my career I underwent numerous background checks, including an extensive one with the FBI. After 9/11 my life and that of any other person with a knee replacement became a living hell.

The metal detectors go off every time I go on a flight. I am required like everyone else to remove my shoes, open my belt, etc. Then the good part comes when I am required to sit while they run a wand over my feet (even when I am barefoot because I am wearing sandals), a wand over my entire body (it only goes off when the run over my left knee replacement) and then I am required to place my hands out to my side, while a junior G man does an incredibly poor pat down search of my person.

I recently flew from Denver to Atlanta and was told to take off my leather belt so they could run it through the x -ray machine. I was told it was a new "rule" that TSA was required to do. That has never happened since. I would have fired a deputy who performed such a poor pat down in a jail and it only seems to be a waste of time because they would never find contraband the way they do pat downs of the disabled now.

While they are spending time checking 60+ year old people that have never created a threat (I am talking about senior citizens in general), they are letting able bodied young people into airport passenger areas with nary a glance. Stupidity at its finest!

Posted by Blair, Oklahoma City on September 22, 2007:

It's amazing that some TSA and airline employees have the mental capabilities to get through their job interview. Either that or the prospective employee pool is so limited that job applicants are hired on a "lesser of the evils" basis.

Perhaps before too long we'll all be flying naked with no carry-on luggage to ease their task.

Posted by Liz, Houston on September 22, 2007:

Bruce, the only noise-cancelling headphones I've ever worn did exactly what you're describing the earplugs doing -- they eliminated steady noises, like the general hum of an airplane (or, when I wore them in the house to try them out, the air conditioner), but I could still easily hear "stand-alone" noises, like someone speaking or an alarm going off, and would be able to identify an emergency and take off the headphones to hear more clearly with no problem. I assume Randy could make out speech with his on, too, since he was able to hear the flight attendant tell him to take them off.

As for the MIT student, I can't agree with Joshua that the police were in the wrong, simply because I have too many questions relating to her behavior -- what was the device for? The article I read said she "wanted to stand out on career day"; why was she wearing it to unrelated places? Why was she carrying around playdough or putty of some kind? Most of all, why didn't she answer the airport employee's question about the device in the first place? The device probably still would have been confiscated on the grounds of being a Scary Unfamiliar Electronic Thing, but I doubt the situation would have escalated to the point that it did.

---

Finally, someone with some common sense! Yes, I've been sitting here waiting for someone to wonder how I heard the flight attendant's instructions. It's a common misconception that these headphones actually produce silence. They don't. I can hear every word said over the PA system, and even the passing flight attendant. I'm certainly not going to be oblivious of emergencies, or emergency instructions. -rc

Posted by Janis, Michigan on September 22, 2007:

Traveling home on Northworst from Disney w/2 kids 5 & 12, a stroller, plus all the inevitable tons of stuff, we were in the security line & had already passed the boarding pass/picture ID checkpoint. I held all 4 boarding passes but the agent refused to accept them from me (as had countless others every other time) and said each passenger had to hold their own. My husband had to hold it in his teeth & I refused to give one to the 5 yr. old.

The most absurd moment came when the agent couldn't reach my husband's pass & I had to grab it back & give it to her. When I said to my husband, "How ridiculous was that?", the agent got irate & yelled after us that she was just following the rules!

Posted by Bergman, Washington on September 22, 2007:

I play paintball. The last time I flew with my sporting equipment of choice, I very carefully researched FAA, DOT, TSA and airline regulations on the subject. I corresponded, both by phone and email, with all three agencies and the airline. My equipment was stowed in my checked baggage exactly according to all regulations.

First, the TSA people scan the bag, and the screener can't recognize the contents. So he opens it and does a manual search. He informs me that I can't fly with CO2 tanks, despite the fact that I literally stuck a pen through the bottle neck to demonstrate they could not hold pressure as they were. He informed me I had three options. Give them to someone who was not flying to hold for me (no such person). Or, I could put them in storage ($20 a day, and a 10 day trip). Or, I could leave them with TSA and they would be destroyed ($300 worth of gear). No amount of arguments, including pointing out that they met every TSA, FAA, DOT and airline (Alaska Airlines) regulation worked. He was going to Save America, by God! I ended up deciding $200 worth of storage fees were better than $300 worth of new equipment. I managed to talk to a TSA supervisor further through the security process, who informed me that the first screener had no reason to decide the way he did. But it was too late to go back, at that point. As it was, with having to put the cylinders in storage, I almost missed the plane anyway.

Posted by Beverly, Vancouver Canada on September 22, 2007:

We just had friends from Germany who stayed with us all summer. On the way here, the woman arrived to find that her 13Euro shampoo and 15Euro special conditioner had been confiscated out of her suitcase (which was "checked" luggage).

Like she was going to get up out of her seat, make it to the cargo hold, FIND her suitcase and then manufacture a bomb at 45,000 feet in -20C temperatures.

It's getting just a bit ridiculous. And she ended up having to buy special shampoo and conditioner here, for $25 Cdn. They left yesterday and she left me the shampoo and conditioner, so that at least a friend could use "the good stuff" - an extra $60 (approx) cost because of dumb airport security rules.

But the best is, they let her keep her nail file in her carry on bag, go figure!

I think the policy should include refunds for expensive items confiscated, perhaps then there'd be some sense to it. I know I'd be very angry if I packed special products for my trip and arrived to find them missing, and without remuneration. I wonder if they would have been confiscated if they were cheap $1.99 products.

Posted by Greig, Oregon on September 22, 2007:

Several years ago I had my own business doing network installation and repair. Since I work late at night and after being accosted several times I obtained a concealed weapons permit and started carrying a pistol with me. I won a contract that required me to fly to Southern California and know the problems of trying to take a gun, I left it at home.

While going through the security checkpoint on the TSA agent started giving me hell because I had a pair of needle nose pliers in my laptop bag. Okay fine, I was running late for my plane anyways so I let them confiscate them. After I finished the job and flew home. I lost a set of precision screwdrivers for the same reason. They came through Portland ok, but San Diego would not let them. I asked them why Portland allowed them trough, but they had no answers for me.

After I got home that afternoon, my wife was cleaning out my bag (she does this, so she can get the invoices taken care of) she discovered, I had left my spare magazine clip in my bag and it HAD FIVE ROUNDS OF LIVE AMMUNITION in it. The TSA was so concerned that I might pinch or poke someone, both major airports missed a bigger threat.

Needless to say I have absolutely zero confidence in these people.

Posted by Dave, California on September 22, 2007:

I recently took Delta's "Delta Connection," operated by Skywest, from Los Angeles to Idaho Falls via a stop and change of planes enroute.

I have never been in a more cramped commercial airline. The seats were tiny and crammed together, suitable only for midgets. Leg room was inadequate; I'm amazed they don't get a passenger with leg clots on every flight. There was no extra room even in the bulkhead seats; if anything there was less. The overhead bins were undersized; inadequate for carry-ons that I have stored without problem on two dozen other airlines. On both the return flights, the AC did not work. (Or was turned off to save money; I really can't say.)

Because I am handicapped, I arranged with the airline, at time of booking, for a luggage cart or wheelchair, so that I could put my luggage on it and push it, and at each stop the airline did have a wheelchair for that use.

However, upon return to LA, when I put my stuff onto the wheelchair and started toward the terminal, I was blocked by an English challenged young handler who belligerently removed the luggage and told me I had to carry it (an impossibility). He was belligerent and I think looking for a fight with the person traveling with me. (E.g., getting up next to him and pointing his finger in the man's face.) He refused to call his superior and refused to identify himself, and concealed his security cards by tucking them inside his vest. We ended up stranded next to the empty, noisy plane, had to enlist the help of the pilot, had to have the airport police called. The police helped carry my bags inside and then we found a cart. As we were walking away, and in the presence of police, the handler came inside, screamed threats at me or my companion, waving his fists in the air, and had to be restrained and pushed back outside by a female gate agent.

In my experience, there are far fewer cases of passengers acting badly than there are of airport and airline employees acting badly, and most cases of passenger misbehavior are provoked by idiotic procedures and stupid or unpleasant personnel.

Posted by Ryan, Daytona Beach on September 22, 2007:

Responding to RC's comment to Jim in AZ,

Unfortunately, flight attendants (like everyone else in the world) have rules they have to follow. And the use of a harness type restraint system is NOT APPROVED by the FAA. There is one harness system which has recently been approved, but I am not familiar with the name. It is understandable that you have issues with the validity of the FARs. However, please respect the fact that flight attendants are in a position of SAFETY. They CANNOT pick and choose which regulations they want to enforce!

---

The harness would be SAFER than none. Period. So your argument is...? -rc

Posted by Mat, Tulsa, OK on September 22, 2007:

This happened years before the current security situation. I was flying home from a business trip through Dallas. When I tried to board the ASA puddle jumper from Dallas to Tulsa the flight attendant told me I could only carry on one bag. I had to surrender either my company laptop or my expensive digital camera. She literally stood in front of the ladder until I put one of my bags on the cart for special luggage abuse. After I sat down, the couple that boarded next were each carrying two cardboard carriers with four bottles of wine in each one, sixteen bottles total between them. I have no idea if they checked any baggage. The woman sat next to me and put her little wine carriers in the floor at her feet for the entire flight. I know that's not kosher but the flight attendant's demeanor was such that I was sure if I said anything I would be thrown off the flight. I complained after the fact, but I doubt if that complaint made it back to her. I can only imagine what that flight attendant would act like in today's security environment.

Posted by Kaimi, Hawaii on September 22, 2007:

Regarding Star Simpson: what was the device for?
It was a visual name-tag - 9 LEDs in the shape of a star.

why was she wearing it to unrelated places?
It was sewn into a sweatshirt that she regularly wore on a daily basis. She just put it on that day like she normally does.

Why was she carrying around playdough or putty of some kind?
Although the news reports are saying "play-doh" it was really an artist's "kneaded" eraser which doubles as "hand candy" for those who like to keep their fingers busy.

why didn't she answer the airport employee's question about the device in the first place?
She did answer. The situation was that she went to an information booth to ask about the arrival status of the plane her boyfriend was flying in on. She got the answer and was about to head off to the luggage area when the information booth attendant asked her what the device was. Star responded that it was art she had made and then she continued on her way to the luggage area. If the attendant asked any more questions, Star didn't hear them.

Posted by Brian from Dallas on September 22, 2007:

I was returning home from Chicago a few years back. I had been to a trade show and, naturally, had obtained a bunch of trinkets from the vendors. I had two 'shopping bags' of stuff as well as my laptop bag.

As I got in line for the security checkpoint, I took my laptop out of its carry bag (since laptops must be removed) and placed the laptop bag into one of the shopping bags (in order to keep to the 2 bag limit). When I reached the screener, I was told that I was only allowed two carry on items. I showed the agent that my laptop bag fit very well into one of the shopping bags and that I had taken the laptop out (the offending third item) for the screening process.

Not only was this totally unacceptable, but I had to place the laptop back into the laptop bag and place the bag back into the shopping bag before I could pass the checkpoint - and proceed to remove the laptop from the bag for screening.

Aaaargh!

Posted by Kat, at a midwestern law school on September 22, 2007:

I'm puzzled by the person who thought earplugs would be better than noise-canceling headphones. I share an office with several people and wear foam earplugs when I need to concentrate. I don't hear people talking to me until they realize I haven't heard them and speak very loudly or tap me on the shoulder. I mean, that's the whole point -- other people talking is exactly the thing I need to NOT hear in order to concentrate. I haven't used noise-canceling headphones but from what folks are saying, it sounds like they would be less of a problem than good earplugs if the issue is being able to hear safety announcements.

The time I checked firearms, before 9/11, it was *too* easy. I, too, had researched everything, called the airline, etc. I bought a lockable hard case, as required. I arrived a half hour earlier than I would otherwise have done, because the information had said that I would have to open the case to show them, and also demonstrate to the agent that they were unloaded, and also allow the agent to put some kind of tag on each one individually. I assumed that this would require going to some private location, because breaking open and then closing a shotgun in the check-in area seems like something that could freak people out. But they never even asked me to open the case. They asked what was in it (a shotgun and a single-shot .22), asked me if they were loaded (no), asked me how much ammunition I had in there (none), asked me if the case was locked (yes), and tagged it and sent it along. Getting from the rental car to the terminal turned out to have been harder than getting the thing checked (it was icy and I was carrying enough stuff to interfere with my balance). They weren't too worried about it when I retrieved it, either.

Maybe they checked slightly more carefully to see that my claim check actually matched the numbers on the tag, but that was about it. (That was at Houston Hobby, where they routinely checked your tags before letting you take your stuff out of baggage claim.)

Posted by Kat, at a midwestern law school on September 22, 2007:

I think Ryan must be thinking of the car-seat type baby carriers that buckle into the airplane seat. I can see a flight attendant refusing to allow a harness instead of a seat like that, when a seat like that is required. I agree with Randy that Ryan's argument makes no sense when the comparison is between a harness or just holding the baby in your lap, unless the FAA has somehow determined that such a harness makes injury more likely (and I can imagine circumstances where it might -- if I held a baby on my lap in coach, it would have maybe six inches before it hit the seat in front of me, which probably wouldn't hurt it very much, but if I had it in a harness that didn't hold its head, the same force could cause a very serious whiplash-type neck injury).

I wish everyone would only carry on a laptop and a camera like Mat. I'm glad they enforce the 2-item rule, or 1 item for small planes, but it 's stupid when they do so for such a small amount of stuff. And his wine people reminded me:

I was once on a flight that was delayed by at least 15 minutes due to some idiot arguing with the flight attendants about a safety decision they had made. This was before 9/11. Today it would probably have been delayed even longer while they arrested the guy and took him off the plane. I even think the flight attendants had the better side of this argument, so it wasn't really an example of total stupidity on their part.

It went like this: guy is sitting in aisle seat with wife & kid (I think) next to him. Guy has large box under the seat in front of him. It sticks out almost to the edge of the seat he's sitting in. Flight attendants say "I'm sorry sir, if you can't put that box all the way under the seat, then it will have to be checked." Guy argues. Flight attendants point out that in an emergency, this box could make it more difficult for his family to get out. Guy says, "that's ridiculous. We all know nothing is going to happen." More argument, during which the guy says something like, "Look. If you force me to check this box, you will be ruining a priceless, unique artifact, just because you insist on blindly following your rules even when there isn't really a problem." Eventually the pilot comes back and explains the guy's choices to him, none of which involve the pilot flying the plane anywhere with this box where it is. This apparently causes the guy to believe they really will call security on him if he doesn't pick one of the other choices, and the box is taken away and we get going.

So, let's see:
1. Guy is dumb: If I were transporting a priceless irreplaceable artifact, I would probably try to have it carefully packed and shipped by a reliable shipper, rather than carrying it with me. FedEx, for example, is really very good. If I wasn't able/willing to do that, I'd make darn sure I would be able to carry it on successfully. (It was clear he was a frequent flyer, not a first-timer who didn't know the rules before he got to the airport.)

2. Guy is dumb: most airline safety rules are like insurance, or seat belts. You don't do them because you know there will be a problem. You do them because you can't know when there will be a problem, and even though the odds are very low, you can't wait and buy insurance/put on your seat belt/move your ginormous box AFTER the problem starts happening.

3. Guy is dumb: arguing with flight attendants is pointless and only wastes everyone's time. I'm not talking about a brief explanation, like Randy explaining that the electronics in his headphones were turned off, which might work with a rational person. But anything beyond that, you're going to lose no matter what, even if you are right and they are wrong. Plus the more you suggest that they are stupid or wrong, the more stubborn they are going to get. That's just human nature. And once the FA's have to call the pilot back, you know the pilot is going to back them up even if his or her internal reaction is "oh, that box isn't a problem." And I would too, if I were the pilot (barring really outrageous FA stupidity, which this wasn't). I wouldn't want people on my plane that won't do what the FA's say, even if FA's occasionally get it wrong or get on a power trip.

4. Guy is a pompous twit, see above.

5. Guy is a jerk who either doesn't realize or doesn't care that he's delaying an entire planeful of people.

That's 5 strikes. He's definitely OUT.

Initially, I had a little bit of sympathy for the guy. I've been on flights where they didn't look carefully and wouldn't have objected to his box. And the odds of a problem are indeed very low and I might be willing to accept that risk if it was just me that would be affected. But I would also know I was accepting another risk, that of having my box taken away and checked. And after he started acting like a pompous jerk, I stopped having any sympathy for him. Really, by the end of all this, I was hoping they would arrest him, or if not, that they would "accidentally" drop his precious box under a truck wheel while checking it.

Even at its best, flying the airlines is a pain in the butt. It's one of the many things in life that, although they are often worth it, are so annoying that they aren't worth it by very much. Insurance is another example, and many medical treatments. Dental crowns. Government in general.

Posted by Greg in Seattle on September 22, 2007:

Gotta agree with Ken in Maryland.

We were on an MD-80, in the back, right by the engines. The flight attendant actually *gave* us foam earplugs. It's not about hearing. It's about electronics.

If you have the phones on, it's reasonable to think you're disobeying (or trying to disobey) the no electronics rule. And even if you're claiming you're using them for ear protection, each time the attendant looks at you with them on, he/she has to pause to think "did he hook them back up when my back was turned?"

If another attendant let you keep them on, that attendant mistakenly thought you looked trustworthy. :-)

Posted by Catherine - Toronto on September 22, 2007:

I've always been very good about taking all metal objects out of my pockets to go through security, but when flying out of a US airport, they seem to find *that* suspicious, and I'm sent aside to be wanded down (nothing beeps), and more than once I've had screeners stick their hands down the front of my jeans because of the front button. Do they grope each and every female jeans wearing customer this way? I don't see it happening to the guys!

And no, we're not going to be forced to fly naked anytime soon, Southwest has at least put our minds at ease there, given that they throw you off the plane if you're showing more skin than they'd like. Southwest's Morality Police

Strangely enough, I flew with a small thing of pepper spray after 9/11, it was on my keyring in a jacket pocket, and the jacket went through the x-ray machine. Only realized it was there when I got home.

I'm lucky I'm Canadian and can often avoid having to fly through American airports, though even airports outside the US are not what they used to be. I've flown El Al a few times, and their security is about as different from the TSA as you can get. El Al, strangely enough, screens for *terrorists*.

But it's harder for the average TSA idiot to learn how to identify terrorists than nail files and water bottles, of course. And when you screen baggage before someone checks in, you don't get to steal all their expensive gear.

Posted by al in Alberta, Canada on September 22, 2007:

My wife is handicapped and we use a wheelchair (usually one from the airline we are using) to go through security and to board. It never fails, they demand that she stand (she can't) while they wave their wands over her and the chair (it's metal!) while I try to keep her in an upright position and get flack because I'm in the way. Even if I tell them she'll fall and they'll have to wave their wands on her on the ground they harass you! I'm thinking it would be better to threaten with a class action lawsuit for $10 million if anything happens to her. Might be an idea.

Posted by Ken, Ventura, CA on September 22, 2007:

Nothing has changed. Well before 9/11/01, I had issues. I had been flying quite a bit and one time I forgot to remove a pocket knife with a serrated bladed. I was flying on Delta out of LAX and they looked at it and did not have a problem with it, so I just forgot about it. Later, I flew on a small prop plane out of LAX, terminal 1, and they took exception to the knife. They said I could not fly with it. This did not make sense since a major carrier had no issue. I asked to see the rules and they refused saying that they did not have to show me.

I asked to talk to a supervisor and they refused at first. Finally I talked to a supervisor and he checked the rule book, but would not show me. He could not find a rule since is was smaller than the banned size, so because it had a serrated blade he decided it was a "menace" knife and said it was banned. Of course, he could not find such a rule, but that did not make any difference since I had a choice of trying to push the issue or make the flight.

The reality is that this nation is now one of sheeple. Most people are not willing to fight or really do anything to get the situation corrected. If enough people got outraged about this and pushed the elected officials, then it could be improved, but the same ol' crooks just keep getting elected over and over again, only the names sometimes change.

Posted by Russell, Idaho on September 22, 2007:

This is not my story, but I came across it while trying to find a way to make a 2nd key for my new used Audi A6. Apparently the Volkswagen / Audi "switchblade" style of car keys are dangerous weapons.

Security personnel are confiscating people's car keys:

http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/article.jsp?id=4568&siteSection=387

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/today/2005-06-22-sky-archivejune21_x.htm

http://www.bookofjoe.com/2005/06/do_not_try_to_b.html

Posted by Ann Parker, Northampton, MA on September 22, 2007:

This is not a biggy but while waiting in the security line I had a bottle of water. When it was almost my turn the attendant told me to throw the water away. I went to take one more drink and he jerked it out of my hand.

---

Same thing happened to my mother. She was 82 years old. -rc

Posted by Sheldon - Tangier, Morocco on September 22, 2007:

I bought a JVC noise-cancelling headphone a few years back and never had any problems in using them from pushback, until this summer, when, on a series of Delta and NW domestic flights, I was being told I could wear them, but they have to be turned off until at altitude and the same in descent. At least, I've been able to keep them on. I've also found that the PA announcements on an aircraft are almost always heard on all the headphone channels, and in many aircraft, it was the only way I could hear the announcements in the cabin.

This procedure for noise cancelling headphone use appears to have started earlier this year, as Air France had no problems with me using them in January and March, on four international legs.

As for the use of GPS receivers in flight, they are generally a prohibited item, as all other radio receivers. At one time, about 1994 or so, Delta allowed VHF only scanners to be used on board, but it was almost impossible to find a VHF only scanner, so the right hand gave and the left hand taketh away. Delta no longer has that policy, and may have changed it when I asked for a clarification in a letter regarding VHF scanners.

Also, somewhere in that same timeframe, I did some experiments with three radios, a Motorola HT-90, a Bearcat BC-205XLT and an Icom IC-02AT, to measure the local oscillator radiation. I used a Hewlett Packard spectrum analyzer, and unless the case of the radio under test was up against the "antenna" I was using on the spec an, I could not "see" the LO radiation from any of the units. Two or three inches away from the antenna, there was no visible indication on the spec an, so my thought is the ability of the aircraft radios to pickup the LO frequencies from my three sample radios was slim to none.

I realize slim isn't quite good enough to risk the lives of a passenger load in CAT IIIc conditions (zero visibility) landings, but at that point, there are no electronics allowed anyway.

Posted by Ben, Illinois on September 22, 2007:

Randy is quite correct about the noise canceling headphones. They work to cancel steady state noise.

One of the first pair that I had surprised me. I was working aboard a full sized motor coach tour bus. We were on our way to pick up the first passengers for a trip. I was at the front of the empty bus, just behind the driver. The other two workers were in the very back, next to the restroom. The bus was going about 70 mph on a typically rough Illinois highway. There was lots of road noise. The normal way to communicate between the front and back of the bus under these conditions would be to shout. All I could see from my position was moving mouths and lips. But, with the noise canceling headphones on my ears (the open style without ear covering cups) I could almost make out the conversation between the two folk standing next to each other at the rear of the bus. If the bus had been standing at idle I would have heard the conversation about that well. The steady state noise had been removed, but the talking came through.

With the current travel regulations, there is no reason, there is only policy.

Posted by Erik, Dallas,TX on September 22, 2007:

I listen to a local radio show here in Dallas that has a pilot on the show, who is also the sidekick on the show. The whole show talks about airline stuff occasionally. The pilot said once that airlines want your ears clear to be able to take emergency info from the flight crew if necessary.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on September 22, 2007:

I've said it here before, people, that the local TSA folks are not highly trained security agents, but minimum wage rent-a-cops hired by TSA. They're buffoons with a badge. They couldn't pass the psychological requirements to get onto the police force, so they pretend to be big bad security agents.

Flight attendants, on the other hand, have changed. The news is full of stories about them making arbitrary decisions under the guise of 'airline security' but what makes me wonder even more is why the airlines automatically back them up. They only apologize afterward when the story hits the airwaves making the entire airline look like idiots. (Too late; the time to apologize was when the incident was reported, not when the airline got caught in the public eye.)

Radios (AM/FM) use heterodyne technology and can cause problems for the navigational equipment, but MP3 players have much less effect. You'd have more chance of causing a crash by stomping your foot on the floor.

But the argument that headset wearers cannot hear instructions is entirely specious! Does that mean that deaf people just will NOT be allowed to fly? Or does it mean that they MUST advise flight attendants of their handicap?

Please! Air travel is enough of a cattle car as it is. There is no need to make it even worse under the pretense of 'additional needed security'. It's just an excuse by people with absolutely NO clue to try convincing others that they do. Especially when others don't give a good royal...

(For those who think I don't know what I'm talking about, I've been flying for over 30 years on nearly every airline in the world, and some that many of you won't even remember existed.)

Posted by Kim, Japan on September 22, 2007:

My husband and I have lived in Asia for over three years now -- three years in China and six months in Japan. We have hopped over northern Asia, traveled around China and Japan, and flown back and forth between Asia and the U.S. many times.

For all the ways people say the mainland Chinese government is uptight and a pain in the keester, I have to say that their airport security is FAR friendlier and less idiotic than what I've seen in the U.S. The coldest shoulder I ever got was a tired, overworked police officer at an immigration check booth who just nodded when I said hello in Chinese.

As for Japan, the Japanese security was very friendly and very helpful every time -- I remember one security checker cheerfully complimenting us on bringing a sushi snack through the security checkpoint.

When we left China for Japan last time, on our last trip, we had a security mishap. I had forgotten that I had put a bunch of change and miscellaneous computer junk in my husband's carry-on bag -- in an extra zip pocket that I often forget exists! When they scanned it, of course all that metal came up. It took us forever to dig through the bag and find everything, but the people at the security check were nice as they could be.

Eventually I remembered what was up and dug out all the extra money and the computer junk -- which included the recharger for my husband's MP3 player. I couldn't blame them for being suspicious -- it WAS a mass of wiring and metal -- but they were NEVER rude or hassling.

I would hate to think of what we'd gone through if the same thing had happened in the U.S.! We probably would have been arrested or something. How scary!

In the U.S. I've been hassled through multiple checks by rude, overworked security people, even when I make a lot of effort to be friendly (and I just went through a fifteen hour flight!). They put us through multiple, redundant checks that as far as I can tell, don't seem particularly productive.

I DON'T blame the workers, though. Airport security is a form of "customer service" that doesn't do the customers much service directly -- and it's a hard job. Every time I get frustrated with customer service, I think back to my days of customer service work. It's a rough job.

They're stuck dealing with inane bureaucracy and are likely in fear that if they make a mistake, their heads will be on pikes. They'll be pilloried by the public. Is that fair? Not at all! Their frustration ends up getting taken out on the people they're serving. I would HATE to have their job! They couldn't pay me enough for that kind of pressure.

I have no fear or concerns about traveling through northern Asia -- may people have asked if I was afraid of the Chinese government or of flying near North Korea -- but I dislike traveling back to the U.S. It worries me that I'm that uncomfortable with my own country and government. It's a bad sign.

Posted by Bergman, Washington on September 23, 2007:

I had an altercation once with a flight attendant, a co-pilot and what I strongly suspect was an air marshal.

As soon as I boarded the plane and sat down, I noticed my seat was malfunctioning. Normally, you have to press the little button on the armrest to make them recline, but mine apparently had a broken latch. I tried to get a flight attendant's attention prior to takeoff, perhaps get a different (unbroken) seat; After all, there *must* be a reason why they tell you to have the seat upright during takeoffs and landings! No go. I used the call button, FA walked by, turned it off, and continued on. I used it again, FA came back, turned it off again, *glared* at me and left. The third time I turned it on, no FA ever showed up. So, I figured I'd just tough it out, and taking off with the seat reclined didn't cause the wings to fall off. Who knew?

So it comes time for the landing at the end of the flight, and *this* time the FA noticed the reclined seat after the pilot makes his "return seats to upright position" speech over the intercom.

*THIS* time, it was a major issue it seemed. The FA ordered me to return the seat to its upright & locked position. I tried to tell her the latch was broken. No go. She talked right over the top of me, in that pseudo-polite manner flight attendants, cops and nurses all seem to have mastered. I returned the seat to upright, leaning forward so my weight wouldn't recline it. The FA objected, telling me my posture was unsafe. So I leaned back, causing the seat to recline. One lecture from the FA later, giving a level of instructions in seat operations suited to a moron, the seat latch was still broken and the FA was still utterly uninterested in listening to any explanations. The FA left abruptly, and I had no idea why.

Shortly thereafter, the co-pilot showed up with the FA in tow. Aha, I thought, she called her supervisor! Now we can make progress, they don't put incompetent people in pilot seats! No go. He too had mastered the pseudo-polite tone of voice, and had as little interest in listening to me as the FA did. I was informed, in that faked polite tone, that disobeying flight crew was a felony, and I would obey him or be arrested and spend the rest of the flight handcuffed.

That's when I noticed the nondescript gentleman in a nice gray suit looming behind both of them, with a shoulder holster under his suit jacket. At least *he* was willing to listen, and was apparently able to override the flight crew's idiocy. Once I demonstrated the broken nature of the seat to him, the problems between me and the flight crew mysteriously evaporated. I never saw either the co-pilot or the FA again.

But what are customer service people like flight attendants coming to these days, when they would rather call a co-pilot out of the cockpit of a plane in flight, involve an air marshal and threaten a paying customer with jail time, rather than listen to an easily proved customer claim of a broken seat?

Posted by Bill Anderson. Surrey, BC on September 23, 2007:

"Those who would give up liberty, in the name of a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

This is not the exact quote by Ben, but it is one I think of when going through Airport security these days.

I travel often from Canada to the US. I found your name on your ticket better match your documents. "James" cannot travel as "Jim", "Benjamin" cannot travel as "Ben" and "William" cannot travel as "Bill". The security agents are not allowed to think, just react. If the name matches you go, if not its a back to the ticket agent for you.

In my case I was rejected by the ticket agent because my name on the ticket was "Bill" and the name on my passport is "William". The ticket agent who worked for the Airline told me I needed to phone the airline to change the booking name on a return portion of a ticket. The agent could not change my name on the ticket nor could the supervisor. I went to a pay phone in the airport and phoned the airline booking number and they changed the name to match and then went back to the same ticket agent and was handed a ticket I could use to pass through security to fly home.

The ticket agent told me she would be "fined" if she gave me a ticket that did not match the passport. Talking to a security agent at screening I met "Jim" who was sent home and missed his flight because his ID showed "James" but his ticket was booked as "Jim".

The final part of that experience was having the security person checking my carry on and they noticed I had a 1 ounce bottle of hand sanitizer. The rule is 3 ounce bottles must be in a 1 quart plastic bag. I threw out the bottle and traveled home thinking about Ben.

Posted by Bonnie in Richmond on September 23, 2007:

A few weeks ago I was flying to Portland, Maine to visit my sister. When I was going through scanning at the airport the guy questioned the bottle of make-up foundation I had in my purse. It was a brand new, un-opened bottle still with the original shrink-wrap around the neck of the bottle--in the original box. Because it wasn't in a zip-lock bag, he wouldn't let it go through. I opened the box to show him the shrink-wrap around the top but he didn't care. I had to toss a $26.00 bottle of make-up before I could board the plane. I also had to take off my flip-flops so they could be x-rayed. Big bulky tennis shoes I can understand, but flip-flops?

Posted by Sue-Ellen, Pittsburgh, PA on September 23, 2007:

About removing your shoes for security, I was just reading TSA's web site two days ago. Gel shoe inserts are not allowed as carry-on or wear-on. How is TSA to check for gel shoe inserts if shoes are not removed?

Posted by Rachel in the Netherlands on September 23, 2007:

I flew to Cairns, Australia this summer, which took four flights: Amsterdam to Frankfurt, Frankfurt to Singapore, Singapore to Darwin, and Darwin to Cairns. I read all of the rules beforehand and followed them closely: liquids in containers of less than 100 ml, all in one transparent plastic bag. Bigger containers in the checked luggage. In Schiphol airport in Amsterdam I bought one bottle of liquor, which was packaged in a sealed plastic bag with the receipt visible. Liquids bought in the airport and packaged this way are allowed.

No problems at all on the first three flights. I was required at each airport to show my little plastic bag of toiletries and they looked at the liquor and its receipt at each airport.
When we landed at Darwin, we were told we had to get off the plane and go through security (going into the airport, not into a plane). There, after three flights with no complaints, the liquor was confiscated, despite the fact that I had not opened the seal and the receipt was still visible. Not only that, but a tube of toothpaste that was nearly empty, but that had originally held more than 100 ml of toothpaste, was confiscated. After three flights! You just wonder what they possibly could be thinking! I'm saving up my explosives to blow up a little plane to Cairns rather than the big plane I took from Frankfurt to Singapore?

To be honest, I was more upset about the toothpaste than the liquor: it was my favourite toothpaste from America (Crest original), which isn't available here!

Posted by Laura, Boston on September 23, 2007:

I used to love flying. I now hate it - due entirely to increased airport "security."

My first problem came soon after the airline implemented the no shoes through security policy (it was January 2002). I was returning from a trip to the Cayman Islands with my best friend. Alcohol is extremely cheap in the Cayman Islands, so in addition to various bottles stuffed in our carry-on bags, we were each carrying a case with two or three bottles. We were a little surprised that security made us take off our shoes, but we did it without complaint. The complaint came when security refused to let my friend, who is 4'11", put her shoes *back* on. He made her take her shoes and pushed her out of the way, causing her to trip over her pant cuff and drop the alcohol. I had to stand in the airport and watch my $11, 1L bottle of Goldschlager color the carpet with gold flecks. I still haven't fully recovered. Worse, when I got home, I discovered that whoever searched my bags chose to relieve me of the box for my tanzanite bracelet I purchased in Mexico - thank God I was wearing it on the flight, and that person got only an empty box for his troubles.

But what is so irritating is that none of these policies make any sense, and none of them do any good. Airline security is reacting to what's already been done, rather than working proactively to stop future threats. The terrorists aren't going to do the same thing twice - and they'll always be smarter than we are. A person without a ticket can no longer go to the gate to drop off or pick up a loved one. How on earth does that help? The September 11 terrorists all had tickets. And I can't imagine that a person who really wants to kill us all is going to change his mind because he had to shell out money for a ticket. As for the gel inserts - for one thing, no one wears them with flip-flops. Even so, the ban makes no sense. The amount of explosives that would fit in a gel insert would also fit nicely under a person's shirt. I can't take my deodorant on a flight, but I can take knitting needles. Now, if I really want to hurt someone, I ask you - what's more effective? Stabbing him in the neck with a knitting needle (and the smaller ones are pretty sharp), or - making him smell like baby powder?

The only thing any of these policies do is increase the burden of travel on law-abiding citizens. It's ridiculous.

Posted by Ron Palmer / California on September 23, 2007:

Over the past four years, I've made four trips from Southern California to Hawaii. Three of those have involved a jump to San Francisco then the long haul to Hawaii; and the same stopover in S.F. on the way back -- a total of twelve "hops" for the three trips.

Every one of the "hops" I have taken pictures during takeoff and landing with the same digital camera -- and have gotten no complaints from anyone, and have even taken a few pictures of the stewardess while they work -- except for the one last jump from San Francisco back to Burbank (Southern California) on a United flight.

The stewardess demanded that all "electronic devices" must be shut off -- for the entire flight. I explained that the camera was not a transmitter, there was no way it could conflict with any communications -- and from her excited reaction, I thought she was about to either throw me off the plane or at least confiscate my camera. Luckily she didn't, but I got no pictures on that flight.

Your mention of Napoleon was right on target.

Posted by Rick, Sydney, Australia on September 23, 2007:

Recently I moved interstate. As always seems to happen, there were a few items that should have been packed, but turned up in the last search through the house, after the van had left with all of our furniture. This time one of the items was a clothes iron, a fairly large chunk of metal, with a sharp point at the front, and a long electrical cord. This iron ended up in my wife's carry-on bag. She had no problems carrying this on to the airplane. It was a good thing she remembered to pack her nail file in the checked luggage, she could have done so much more damage with the nail file than the iron!

Posted by Melodie, New Jersey on September 23, 2007:

I have become increasingly frustrated with the so-called security measures at airports - to the point that I would rather drive than fly (as long as the destination is not overseas). I sympathize with those who've commented about the "shoe removal policy." It bothers me quite a bit that, while the airlines have instituted policies that require large numbers of people to traipse through certain areas barefoot, they have apparently not instituted policies or procedures for sanitizing these areas. I think I'm at far greater risk of contracting foot fungus or warts than I am of victimization by terrorists.

I've also noticed that, even though I am required to display my photo ID at several points, my actual face is not scrutinized. I don't believe that the security checkers are doing anything more than determining that I can present the required documentation - not that said documentation is actually my own. I certainly feel no more or less safe than I did before 9/11 - only more frustrated.

Besides, my car is far more comfortable than any airplane seating I can afford. With the extra time required for processing through security, and the degree of exhaustion inflicted by the process, I find I'm far better off driving to almost any North American destination. Perhaps if more of us took to the roads and rails, the airlines would take notice.

Posted by Meg, Oslo on September 24, 2007:

Flying internationally always seems to make the already confusing rules even more hazy. For instance, a lot of the TSA information in the US has been "simplified" recently and lists the carry-on liquid as a handy "3 ounces" instead of the old 3.4. That means there's always confusion coming from overseas about "Is 100ml (3.4oz) really still okay?" There was actually a perfume shop at my parents' airport that closed down because the 100ml bottles were "too big to take on the plane."

The best, though, was right after the liquids ban went into effect. We were at the airport in Beijing and had to go through the special US-bound security line. At our gate, we had to go through some security again (since we could have been mingling with the passengers who went through normal security), and my travel companion showed them that she had a tube of lip gloss with her. They were refusing to let her take it on the plane, because it "wasn't in a clear plastic bag." I'd just bought a sandwich and handed her the clear bag it came in. She dropped the lip gloss in the bag and they happily let her board the plane.

Now we know that the bag is supposed to be a fixed size to limit the total amount of liquids, but this is a clear example of how the original intent and the wording of the rules don't always match up!

Posted by Meg, Oslo on September 24, 2007:

The prohibition of gel inserts in shoes always strikes me as funny. The TSA rules make a point to mention that while "gel shoe inserts are not permitted" on the aircraft, "gel-filled bras may be worn through security screening and aboard aircraft." Trust me when I say that a bra can contain much more liquid than a shoe insert! But can you imagine the public outcry if women were asked to remove their bras before passing through security?

Posted by SimonTek, Los Angeles on September 24, 2007:

When I flew from ATL to Flint last year. I had some trouble, But I expected it. I was flying one way, cause a buddy needed someone to co drive is truck back to ATL.

What were the contents of my bag? Laptop, (high powered 200mw) Wireless card. 9dba Omni direction antenna; magna-mount (think like small cb antenna used for wardriving with laptop and wifi card), Power Inverter, Tech Tools, XM radio, with power and satellite antenna. The only thing they really freaked about was the power inverter. You would think screwdrivers, soldering iron, etc would have freaked them out. I even told them, hand me my Phillips head, i will take the inverter apart. Apparently no one told them you could run AC equipment in the car.

Maybe the hacker shirt freaked them out. (jinx.com shirt)

Posted by Jim - Ontario Canada on September 24, 2007:

I too have bridled at such ridiculous enforcement of ridiculous rules. However I suspect that their existence is mostly so that flight attendants (and others) don't have to understand technology (etc.). The rules about electronics were in place years before 2001. With the proliferation of very small area wireless technologies (think bluetooth and fm transmitters) it is a lot to expect a technologically oriented person to recognize all the transmitters, and probably hopeless for someone not technologically oriented (I mean there is a stereotype for airline attendants after all). Rather than examine each person's device it is easier just to tell people to turn them all off.

I suspect the aircraft are sufficiently hardened today anyway and this is just a rule no one has gotten around to changing. A nurse from the ICU recently told me that it was ok to use my cell phone in the hospital (he said that studies had shown it to be safe and he expected the overall hospital policy be changed to match in the near future).

---

The 9/11 hijackers allowed passengers to use their cell phones, yet they were still able -- with minimal training -- to hit their targets with pinpoint accuracy. What further proof do we need that cell phones don't bother airplanes? -rc

Posted by Ryan, Daytona Beach on September 24, 2007:

To Kat,

Bingo! The FAA has determined that harness-type restraints pose a greater risk to infants than just hitting the seat. And yes, car-seat types are approved (most of them - there should be a tag with an FAA #), but the FAA has also recently approved a harness type restraint, as well. Once again I can't recall the name, but perhaps this does a better job of securing the infant's neck?

Randy, my argument is that FAs are not scientists. They are told "This is unsafe." I absolutely agree with the concept of thinking for yourself and making appropriate decisions. But I also believe that when you have something written giving explicit instructions, it is dangerous and irresponsible to just assume you know better.

Posted by Greg, Lexington, KY on September 24, 2007:

It's not just the security rules, it's the security rules mixed with the business rules. I recently flew to Texas and was advised along with everyone else that I was allowed one carry-on and on personal item such as a purse. Well. I just travel with my computer bag so that was fine.

Two people in front of me was a woman who had three items: a small purse, a camera case and a small bag with a book she had bought at the airport bookstore (and perhaps some other small items). None of these were larger than the phone on my desk and combined were all substantially smaller than my computer bag. Well, the airline made a big deal that she was only allowed two items and none of the bags would fit inside the other as they were all almost exactly the same size. Eventually, she stepped aside and shuffled things until she got the camera bag sticking way out but technically in the plastic bag.

Meanwhile, while she was doing that, the gentleman in front of me stepped up with two identical bags, both suitcases on rollers, both larger than the little metal example should permit, clearly neither one a personal item. Of course, the very same person who told the lady that she had too many bags raised no objection and he was whisked on through. I'm sure he was also the more valuable customer.

Of course when we got on the sold out flight, there was not enough space for bags. The gentleman with the two bags taking up a whole bin did not offer to have either of his stowed for pickup at unboarding, some kinder folks did.

The rule is unexplained (security, safety, or just space?). It is unenforced in some ways (size) or maybe for some people, but zero tolerance is applied in other really dumb ways. No sensible explanations were given at the time and a lot of folks saw the incident. No notation was made that this gentleman's bags should be first to go under, or if he is valuable enough why not let him buy to reserve space and let the rest of us know. If it worked that way, I'd be a lot less upset, it would then be my call whether or not I wanted to guarantee space for my carry-ons. Bottom line, why have a rule that is enforced to the absolute letter in some parts and not at all in others unless there is an ulterior motive that is just serving to piss off customers in a way that will not show up on somebody's spreadhseet?

Posted by Kelly, Indianapolis, Indiana on September 24, 2007:

As a former flight attendant, I can tell you it is part of all airline security checks prior to takeoff to make sure passengers are not wearing headphones. The reason is that most problems occur right after takeoff or during landing and you would be unable to hear safety information if you were listening to something else. The flight attendant has no way of knowing if you have turned off the sound so it is standard procedure to have you remove them. I don't know if this is an FAA requirement or an airline requirement but he should have told you the reason why.

Posted by Sarah, New Albany, IN. on September 24, 2007:

Recent round trip to Palm Beach Fl.from Louisville Ky. my check-in case was not questioned as to weight but on return I had to pay $50.00 extra to have my bag return with me. I also had to separate many items into smaller plastic bags which would not fit into my carry on and several items were damaged.

On arriving my $150.00 bag had the covering over the bar connected to the wheels badly torn. No help from Delta. On returning several people had 2 pull on bags that the flight attendants had to help them down the isle and stow overhead as they were too heavy to lift alone. Our peanuts were confiscated when one person claimed an allergy. On arrival in Louisville there was again no representative to report that my leather bag had had the handle completely torn off.

I had taken 6am flights as later flights seem to be troublesome. Delta also informed me that they do not guarantee luggage repair and it would most likely be denied if I made a claim as I did not do so at the airport. Fat chance of that as neither airport had any representative to report to. Guess i won't be flying Delta again. I also have my own travel agency, hope Delta reads this as I certainly will nor recommend them any time soon.

Posted by pete, new york on September 24, 2007:

Randy, forgive me for asking - what is the brand of noise cancelling headphones you own? I'm just (quietly) curious.

---

I don't mind at all. They're the newer Panasonic brand. -rc

Posted by Bob -- Maui on September 24, 2007:

Just completed 6 separate United flights to and from the Mainland. On 2 of the 6, the flight crew had morphed from merely surly into the equivalent of prison camp guards.

The "purser" on the flight from LAX to Maui spent most of the flight haranguing us poor passengers with bullying and threats, on a far-too-loud sound system. He made the outrageous statement that he and his crew were "empowered" by the TSA and that if we did not exactly follow their orders, we would be arrested for a felony. He demanded that we put nothing into the seat pockets in front of us. When I tried to go to the bathroom (I have suffered from kidney stones), I was ordered to return to my seat. When I suggested that I would wet myself at my seat, I was threatened again.

On the other flight, it was a small commuter jet, and I was threatened by the crew because my bag peeked out 1/2" from the area under the seat in front of me.

Apparently, we are no longer CUSTOMERS, we are inmates of a prison camp, and the Gulag guards are in charge of the airplane.

There was a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, in which the airline employees claimed that passengers had lost all decorum, and that the employees were the poor victims of badly-behaving air passengers. Well, the letters to the editor were completely on the other side, pointing out that the air crews had reached new lows. I have to agree now, having experienced this new terror of over-empowered airline employees.

Posted by Buddy in Alma on September 24, 2007:

A group of us flew to Albuquerque this summer on a mission trip to the Navajo Indian Reservation in Window Rock, AZ. We were stopped at the checkpoint by a security person because one of the women in our group had more than one small plastic bag in her suitcase... one bag held her 3 oz. toiletries, the others were empty. She was told to throw the empty bags away. Nobody said anything when she got on the plane, this happened while we were exiting the airport in Albuquerque! (Meanwhile my wife had several large bottles of shampoo in an outside pocket of her carryon bag going and coming without incident!?)

Posted by Denise, NC on September 24, 2007:

To the FAs who have responded here, especially the ones who cite safety concerns regarding people being able to hear: What do you do to or for deaf people, people wearing ear plugs, people sleeping, or people who speak a foreign language? Griping about headphones being a "safety hazard" just doesn't cut the mustard when the other hazards go unnoticed.

Regarding the use of cellphones and other transmitters: I asked a pilot once about the restriction, and he told me that it had nothing to do with interfering with the instrumentation. He said it was because some of the devices transmit in frequencies that the pilots are using. He laughed when he told me about some of the racy conversations he's overheard when people thought they were sneaking private cellphone time with a loved one!

Posted by Devin, Philadelphia on September 24, 2007:

While I was vacationing in New Jersey over the summer, I happened to find a chunk of bog iron, which I thought would be an interesting addition to my rock collection back home in Idaho. I put it in a ziploc bag labeled, "Bog Iron sample, collected 7/4/2007, Wharton State Forest," and put it in my checked baggage.

When I arrived back in Idaho (and picked up my bags a couple days later when Northworst Airlines finally found them), I discovered that my rock had been replaced by a search notice. Umm ... let's see, was that because iron is such a volatile material that a mere two-inch-diameter chunk of it can blow up an airplane? Or were they afraid of my plastic-explosive Ziploc bag and its chemical-weapon Sharpie ink?

Also, going through security, I had forgotten to get a Ziploc bag for my tiny toothpaste and mini mouthwash. The security people seemed really confused that these things weren't in a baggie and kept asking me if I had one. So I finally asked, "I can't have my mouthwash and toothpaste just because they're not in a little bag? I thought the bag was only to ensure I don't have too much, right?" They thought about this for a long moment before finally letting me keep my items. So keep up hope -- not all of these people are completely mindless!

---

There's an endorsement: not all of them are idiots, just most of them! But yes, I've met TSA people with brains and senses of humor, so I know they're out there! -rc

Posted by Dave, Lyons, NY on September 24, 2007:

My wife and I flew down to Aruba this spring for vacation. While on a transfer in Atlanta,the ticket people asked if anyone wanted to upgrade to !st class for a small fee. We went up to do so and were told our tickets were not upgradable because they were discount tickets. I asked this nice person what they would do with the empty seats then.....fly them empty! Way to go Delta!

Posted by SimonTek, Los Angeles on September 24, 2007:

When I lived in Atlanta, I lived right near PDK (Peachtree Dekalb) airport. Its the 2nd busiest airport in GA behind hartford. I really think I understand why. Why not take a small private jet. Virtually no security needed to get on a plane. There are now companies that do commercial flights out of those airports. Might be worth the extra cost for the convenience.

Posted by Ryan, Daytona Beach on September 24, 2007:

Denise,

To answer your question, it is impossible to eliminate all hazards, however, as flight crew members we have a responsibility to mitigate hazards to the best of our ability.

Individuals that are hearing impaired are generally (if the FA is made aware) given an individual safety briefing.

Earplugs, unlike headphones, merely dampen loud sounds. They still allow important information to be heard. And for those of you who are about to argue - yes, I know if the CD Player, MP3 Player, etc is turned off then the headphones are essentially earplugs - but how do we know that the device is really turned off?

While it is possible that an individual is completely asleep on takeoff - it is far more likely that they are at least partially awakened by the sudden rumble of the jet engines. That being said, I have slept through takeoff many times. Perhaps, as a safety precaution, we *should* require that individuals be awake during takeoff and landing? But I imagine that wouldn't go over too well! =)

Finally, there's not a lot we can do for individuals who speak a foreign language. =/

What all of this ultimately comes down to - is mitigating risk. It can never be completely removed!

And as a side note - you're exactly right about the cell phones! *Not to be repeated...* I was listening to my voicemail during a ground hold one day... after the flight the copilot proceeded to give me a complete description of all my messages! Luckily it was just my parents that had called!! =) They do tell us that in flight - the signal put out by the cell phone searching for a signal can activate the smoke detectors in the cargo bay. However, I have never met a pilot who would verify this. Perhaps this was just misinformation by an instructor, but still, food for thought... =)

Posted by Tod in Birmingham on September 24, 2007:

I was flying from La Guardia, and while getting my ticket I asked about a small flask of Scotch I had in my carry-on luggage. The ticket agent asked if it was less than 3 ounces, and I said yes...2&1/2 ounces was stamped on the bottom. Should be OK, I was told. However, going through security, the baggage screener asked who owned the flask, and a security rep came over and went through my bag. She said I was not allowed to carry the flask of scotch on the plane, despite its being only two and a half ounces. OK, I said, give it to me and I'll drink it - it's good scotch (Oban). No, she said, if I want to drink it, I'd have to go out of the security line back into the ticket area...about 20 feet, but a good thirty minutes away.

I got a little annoyed and asked what the difference was if I drank it there or here?? We argued a little, then the lady behind me in line suggested a ziplock baggie, and pulled a used one full of cookie crumbs from her pocket. She gave it to the security rep, who put my flask in it and handed it to me. I was dumbfounded. This used ziplock bag suddenly made my small flask non-threatening! I still don't get it, and I'm also annoyed that one cannot buy alcohol on planes anymore with cash. One has to use a credit card. I think this might be actually against federal law, as cash is legal tender for any and all debts. Am I wrong?

Posted by Jacy, Houston, TX on September 24, 2007:

My complaints about how airline security is handled are umpteen. However, my main personal experience with the zero-tolerance aspect came when I was traveling alone with my daughter recently. The security staff didn't like my (at the time) 6 month old daughter's Robeez being on her feet (little tiny leather moccasins), had to remove them like all other shoes being worn by adults. Which wasn't the end of the world, but it surprised me a bit nonetheless. They spend So Much Time being super strict about the window dressing, so little on substance.

Posted by Tod in Birmingham on September 24, 2007:

Interesting story of a pre-911 flight. I was leaving La Guardia, and had two large bags to check - one of which had a couple of floor nailers in it. These are fairly large and heavy tools that I had lent to a New York friend, and was bringing back home to Wisconsin. At the ticket counter, I suggested to the agent that I would like my bags to get off in Detroit, as I was exiting the plane there (to drive a new car back to Wisconsin) rather than my ticket destination, Minneapolis. The agent said he could not do this, and technically I should not have told him I was not going all the way to my ticket destination. He told me just to carry the bags on, and he would pretend i hadn't told him anything.

Now I can see the danger of a passenger getting off the plane, and leaving his bags on board without him, but if one asks that the bags come off early...what's the problem? Anyway, security was great. As my bags went through the x-ray, I was quickly surrounded by law enforcement. But after opening my bags, and explaining what they were and how they worked, I was allowed to embarrass myself by carrying on two huge bags on a full flight. Nobody said anything, but all the bins were full, so I had to try and stuff them under the seat in front of me. Of course, only one really fit - and the other had to ride on top, with my feet on top of that. My knees were in my chest the whole way to Detroit. It was very uncomfortable, but I couldn't complain about the airline personnel, they gave me no trouble whatsoever.

Posted by Bergman, Washington on September 24, 2007:

I doubt the 3oz/100ml bottles in a ziploc bag will really stop any terrorists. I used to play roleplaying games regularly, and was often the game master. A large part of that job is to concoct plots and villainous plans for the players, in the guise of their characters, to thwart the villains and Save The Day! (tm). This gives me a decidedly sinister mindset when it comes to looking at security plans. I can usually spot flaws and holes better than cops and as well as trained security specialists. Based on my limited understanding of chemistry (high school) and that roleplaying experience, I can think of 3 or 4 ways to bring explosives aboard in nice little 3oz bottles. Two of them wouldn't even be detectable by explosives detectors or dogs, while the other two would set such measures off only if opened. The two undetectable ones, you could even apply the contents of the bottles, individually, to your skin without ill effect. And yet, if combined properly (a ziploc bag makes a *wonderful* mixing container) and taped against an airliner bathroom window, the resulting bang would remove anywhere (depending on the exact method) from just the window to a sizable chunk of the airframe.

Surely, the terrorists have people more educated than a high school graduate who never went to college working for them?!?

Posted by Charlie, Plano TX on September 24, 2007:

After getting small Swiss Army Knife confiscated yet again, I realized that the scissors & nail file are okay now and it is just the blade which is an issue. The blade doesn't stay sharp anyway, so it is the least used piece. I took a pair of pliers and snapped off the blade. The next flight, when it got caught, I said it didn't have a blade. After checking, he said it was fine.

Fast forward about 2 years & about a dozen flights (where it only got noticed about half the time, but when it did get caught, "no blade" was sufficient reason to let it through). This time, the supervisor called over to look said that even without a blade, it was illegal since it looked like a weapon. I asked what sort of weapon it looked like and he said it looked like it would have a blade inside. I couldn't understand how I could threaten someone with the idea that I could get to a knife if I wanted to (because it doesn't look anything like a knife (just like it might have a knife inside). He insisted on confiscating it. I snapped the blade off another and continue to get the "it's fine if it doesn't have a blade" from everyone else.

Posted by Miles in Phoenix AZ on September 24, 2007:

A friend of mine recently flew from Portland, OR to Phoenix, AZ on a MAJOR air carrier. The boarding gate follies included challenging my friend's terrorist standing for attempting to board with a 3-1/2 ounce tube of toothpaste. The limit is clearly defined as 3 ounces maximum. When my friend pointed out that the tube was nearly flat and in effect, had only enough product for two uses....meaning only about 1/2 ounce was actually remaining in the tube....he was denied boarding until he relinquished the offending tube. The explanation being that "the tube is labeled 3-1/2 ounces" and that's that. No wiggle room, period. What's next? If I am carrying a 1000 piece puzzle for my child, are they going to verify the piece-count before I board? What about those filter cigarettes that advertise 10,000 fibers in each filter.....we long for those thrilling days of yesteryear....and a little common sense.

Posted by susan, California on September 24, 2007:

I use earplug-style headphones and have never been asked to remove them, in spite of "you must remove headphones" announcements. I'm guessing the reason why is that I remove the jack from my device and conspicuously place the unplugged jack near my face on the aisle side. The FAs see the headphones and the jack - clearly not attached to a device that might be turned on - and don't give me any trouble. (Lucky for me, since I go bat@$&% crazy hearing the sounds of gum-chewing or hard-candy-sucking, which happens most often during takeoff and landing. My sound-isolating headphones block out those noises and much engine noise, but not PA announcements or close conversation. As Randy noted, it would be easy to hear emergency instructions.) Bless you, bless you, all flight attendants who have spared me so far.

On the other hand, the liquid thing is just unreal. I have a vacuum flask that I keep with me at all times, usually filled with water. Generally I empty it prior to entering the security checkpoint and fill it from a water fountain on the other side. On several occasions, I have completely forgotten to empty the flask, and have traveled through the checkpoint with up to a liter of water in my bag. How many times have I been asked to prove that it is empty (in 30+ trips through security since the liquids ban)? Exactly one. In London's Heathrow, where embarrassingly I had forgotten to empty it. Again, bless his heart, the agent watched me drink the small amount of water left in the flask and sent me on my way, rather than confiscating the costly flask (as I expect a TSA agent would have done).

Oh, and this one was my own stupid fault, but damn! I went through security last week and foolishly left my backpack unzipped (after having removed liquids and laptop) and apparently my iPod slipped out and onto the table at the far end without my notice. I say apparently because a coworker traveling with me, but several people behind me in line, told me on the plane when I discovered it missing that she had been asked if an iPod fitting the description of mine was hers. She said no and handed it to the security agent (completely unaware that it was likely mine). Needless to say, when I called lost and found, the iPod had not been turned in nor was it at the checkpoint. I can't say for sure that the agent decided "hey, free iPod!" or whether a traveler took advantage of the situation and claimed it him- or herself, but either way I'm bummed. Again, my own stupid fault.

Mostly, I've been lucky, I guess. But I still hate taking my shoes off.

Posted by Tom, Ohio on September 24, 2007:

I have been tagged a couple of times for random searches at airports. The first time was in 2004 in Maui, heading back to Indiana.

I flew out of Ft. Wayne, IN, going through security both there and in LAX because of changing terminals. Then I went through security at the Maui airport with no problem. When I went to get on the plane, the FA pulled me to the side and called the TSA. That was how I found out about the SSSS mark on tickets and what it means. I was supposed to have pulled over at the x-rays and searched there, but they missed seeing the mark, despite holding the ticket in their hands and looking at it.

So I had to have everything taken out of my computer bag and backpack, along with the wanding and footwear removal, with all the other passengers staring as they boarded the plane. The worst part was when I got home and unpacked, I found a leatherman tool, with 3 different size knife blades, that had made the trip with me, through 3 x-ray machines and a special search. Doesn't exactly make me confident about safety when I fly.

Posted by Brendan, Brisbane, Australia on September 24, 2007:

A note on not placing babies in harnesses ... On one of the shows that reconstructs airline crashes a hostess who was on a flight where half the passengers died was interviewed. She followed airline rules and forced several mothers to place their babies on the floor when it became obvious the plane was going to crash. ALL of the babies died, but the mothers survived. Apparently the rules remain unchanged and the stewardess lives with the feeling she is responsible for these babies' deaths.

Posted by Ernest, Sydney Australia on September 25, 2007:

What I don't understand is, there have been hijackings and bombings ever since there was commercial airtravel. Why is security so tight now? Because two buildings fell down, and a certain 5-sided building was slightly damaged?

Can you say ridiculous?

By the way, nobody has ever checked to see that my bags match my claim checks. Not even when one or more bags arrived on a different flight. I've often wondered why we even have them. Now I know that some airports actually check this.

Posted by Ramon in Spain on September 25, 2007:

When flying United's 747 from Chicago to Frankfurt I was given a seat on the last center row (62) and after 6 hours I stood to stretch my legs. After a while, since the crew seat was right there, I pulled it down and sat on it.

One of the flight attendants (the cranky one) saw me and started to wave at me from 20 rows down with clear signs that she wanted me out of there. When she got to me she obviously showed her power and kept saying: "IT'S AGAINST FEDERAL LAW... IT'S AGAINST FEDERAL LAW"

I don't know if this is true, but I can just imagine the sessions in Congress... "Hmmm... how 'bout the crew seats... should we treat them as tampering with the smoke alarm?"

Can anyone confirm or deny this? I found it amusing.

Posted by Paul, Rochester NY on September 25, 2007:

I was told to remove my walkman earphones on a flight in 1991. Not for security, but so that I can hear the announcements. In spite of the fact that I was able to carry on this conversation with the earphones on, the FA wasn't convinced that I could hear them even with the phones on.

Posted by Norm, Canada on September 25, 2007:

Regarding the headphones, apparently it is that the the most likely times for accidents is during takeoff and landing and so they want to have passengers able to hear emergency instructions. Fair enough, ... however...

I was on a flight, had my headphones on (using my MP3 player), and fell asleep. As were landing, I get woken up by the attendant and asked to remove my headphones. I asked "why?" and told the above reason (so I can hear instructions). So, I responded, how am I going to hear them if I'm asleep? No response.

Window shades: got on an early morning flight (made sure I had a window seat), settled in while people are boarding, pulled down the shade and tried to doze off. The attendant comes by and says I have to have the shade up. "Why?" Safety procedure while the plane is being fueled (so attendants or whoever can see if there is a problem outside). Ok. When the fueling is done and we start to pull away from the gate, I pull the shade down. No good. Must have shades up during the take off and landing. Ok, so why are half the window shades currently down? No response.

The one that always gets me going is the electronic devices. If a $25 cell phone device is going to take out a $100 million plane (or whatever they cost), don't you think they would have come up with something that would solve the problem by now?

Posted by Tom, Merrimack, NH on September 25, 2007:

I believe you're incorrect on this one. This is not a result of the terrorism fears; this is a normal rule: your ears must not be obscured during take-off or landing so that you can hear any emergency directives given by the crew. Similarly, the window shades must be up in the rows with exits, and that's also why they turn off the movies and/or music during those times. (There's no technical reason they would need to turn off the movies in the seat backs before landing.) They want you to be able to hear if anything unusual is going on.

Earbud headphones, unplugged, do not block hearing. Padded surround-the-ear headsets would. They're trying to look out for you based on rules they've been told; don't give them a hard time for it.

---

To be sure, I didn't give him a hard time. But again, I can hear better with the headphones ON than OFF, so they compromise my safety by insisting I remove them. -rc

Posted by Greg, Illinois on September 25, 2007:

I am a FORMER airline worker and, as such, have an intimate knowledge of why service is getting worse. I refuse to fly anymore unless it's absolutely unavoidable. I know first hand that the security you see up front is a farce. The TSA is hiring underqualified personnel, many who used to work for the private security companies prior to 9/11. A little known fact is, you could nearly drive a tank through the employee entrance to most airports. If you have an employee ID, you don't get searched. I know for a fact that some employees, whether accidentally or intentionally, have brought loaded firearms onto the airport.

The biggest problem, and this is not necessarily unique to the airline industry, is that upper management is looking at any and every opportunity to cut costs in order to increase profits and, surprisingly, their bonuses and other compensation. They have outsourced airplane cleaning, which used to be done by dedicated airline employees, to subcontractors who, in many cases, hire illegal aliens to do the work for substandard wages. Don't believe me, check out the record of Elvira Arellano. She is PRECISELY what I'm talking about. This is just one example of the many cuts and outsourcing that have taken place at the airlines. Nowadays, quality of work takes a back seat to the lowest bidder. Jobs that were formerly full-time are now part-time and, because of that, the employees who hold them are making just above minimum wage with no benefits. My thought is, you get what you pay for. Fast-food pay scale gives you fast-food quality. Do you really want to trust your life to an airline mechanic making $10 an hour with no benefits and who has no emotional attachment to the airline he is repairing planes for? Would you take your new Mercedes to some toothless high-school dropout who fixes lawnmowers in his backyard?

I left the airline industry because I had taken over 30% cuts to wages and benefits while the cost of living was ever increasing. If I had stayed, my family and I would have been bankrupted. Many of my former coworkers have had to sell their homes and move into smaller dwellings because of this trend while the executives have continued to rape the company and pillage the coffers.

My analogy of the airline business used to be, American, United and Delta where the high-end luxury models while Continental, Southwest, Northwest and USAirways were the low-end models, similar to Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac and Lincoln being the high-end and Isuzu, Chevy, Dodge and Suzuki being low-end. You don't buy an Isuzu and expect the quality and comfort of a Mercedes. Likewise, you didn't buy a ticket for Southwest and expect the comfort and quality of United. However, the executives have forgotten this and want the big three to compete with Southwest. What a shame, what a waste. Now you have a choice between Southwest and a bunch of Southwest clones!

Posted by Beth in Washington DC on September 25, 2007:

My husband, my 2 kids (5 and 3 at the time), and I were travelling when the security personnel decided that they need to search me and my husband at the same time. I tried to protest and say can't we just take turns. They were too worried we'd hand each other stuff so they needed to do it at the same time. Apparently we might hand our children something, so they kids weren't allowed to be near us either. So my husband and I were standing there with our arms out why they waved the wand around, watching them attempt to control our children and keep them away from us. Oddly enough, I felt no need to help security.

We both volunteer at a fire department and our stuff set off some chemical detector. So, yes, we really did need to be searched. But, why at the same time and why not our kids?

Posted by Diane, California on September 25, 2007:

Ontario, CA, airport security check. I had a half-liter plastic bottle of water, which I put in the tray with my shoes. TSA guy says "Can't take that through." I said, "But I at least need to keep the bottle so I can refill it for the flight." He says, "You'll have to go back downstairs and empty it in the restroom sink first." I would have had to stand in the long security line again. So I just picked up the bottle and drank the whole thing in one breath right there in the line, and put the empty bottle back in the tray. That satisfied him. I just wondered why I had to drink the whole thing. Wouldn't a couple of swallows have proved that it wasn't an explosive or hydrochloric acid or something?

When I got on the other side of the x-ray machine and was picking up my things, a female TSA inspector smiled and said "The restroom is right around the corner." "Thanks," I replied.

Posted by Steve, Riverside, CA on September 25, 2007:

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We've given airline employees absolute power in the name of security and it should not be a big surprise (though extremely frustrating) when that power gets abused.

Although my experience wasn't (supposedly) security related, it demonstrates the same principle. When a British Airways employee stole my PDA out of a side pocket of my checked luggage, a British Airways baggage claim representative told me they weren't responsible and would not reimburse me because I could have taken the PDA on-board with me. That logic still escapes me but I'm sure I don't get it only because I'm lacking in cerebral wattage.

Bottom line in either case -- they have the power; the customer doesn't. And the price you'll pay in time, energy, frustration and money to challenge the power the airlines either legitimately have or arrogate unto themselves makes any challenge unlikely (for most of us).

Ergo, we live with it. (And grumble among ourselves.)

Posted by Mark, Colorado on September 25, 2007:

As a pilot and owner of a Turbine Powered Aircraft, who uses noise canceling Headsets for every flight:

I think your assessment of the Flight attendant a bit inaccurate. I would consider her more a headset Nazi than a Napoleon since she forced her will on you with a total lack of knowledge and a complete indifference to anything but her own authority.

Posted by Lise, Illinois on September 25, 2007:

Just got back from a week-long trip to Ireland. Was suffering from a cold, so needed to bring my Robitussin for the flight. It's a liquid, and it doesn't come in a container less than 8 oz. Needed to bring my contact lens solution. Again, doesn't come in a container less than 4 oz, so of course it exceeded the "3 oz liquid" limitation. Didn't feel comfortable checking these things, as I have no great confidence in the airlines' ability to get me and my luggage reunited at the other end of the flight.

So according to the TSA website, I could have the larger items screened separately. Crammed the rest of my 3-oz bottles of personal-care liquids into the requisite quart-size Ziploc bag. Got thru the security line at O'Hare, showed the guy my gallon-size ziploc bag containing the Robitussin and the contact lens solution and said, "I need you to screen these separately because they don't come in anything smaller than this." The guy glanced at my bag, and said, "Oh, that's medical, that's fine," and waved me along. Now, I could have had two chemicals in those bottles that I could have combined on the flight to cause an explosion. I get the feeling the TSA screening is all for show. As I mentioned to my traveling companions after my Robitussin was waved through (but out of earshot of the TSA people), "You know, suddenly I feel less safe."

Posted by Don, San Jose, CA on September 25, 2007:

I too am frustrated by the inconsistent enforcement of rules and the apparent lack of logic behind them. Despite this, I tend to defend the airline industry. I am the son of a commercial airline pilot and a friend to numerous flight attendants. Like with any occupation where safety and security are part of the job description, abuse of power happens. In your story, one potential legitimate reason for her insistence of you removing headphones could be for safety. With headphones on, you may not have heard any urgent announcements, such as "Kiss your behind goodbye, 'cuz we are all going down!"

Posted by Carl, Slidell, LA on September 25, 2007:

Ask yourself this - if you were flying cross country to scatter a loved one's ashes, how would you do it?

At my parent's request, they wanted their ashes scattered in the Yellowstone River in Livingston, MT. I lived in Pennsylvania. We had the ashes in two wooden boxes - Cherry, very pretty, very heavy. I decided that the boxes were too heavy to carry on a plane, and didn't want to leave the ashes in checked bags because I didn't want to lose them. So I took the ashes out of the boxes (they were in clear plastic bags inside the boxes. I placed both bags in a cardboard box and taped it shut. I anticipated (correctly) that I was going to have an issue taking it through security, so I even carried packing tape with me to retape the box after I knew it would be opened. (Pre 9/11, I had carried my mom's ashes through security with only a question as to what it was.)

So, I get to the line, and I hear the dreaded words, "bag check." An agent asks who belongs to the backpack (the box was in the backpack. I claimed it, and the agent asked me to step to the side and carried the bag with him. He asked what I had in the bag. I replied, "Human remains - ashes from a cremation." He asked me to open the bag and the box, which I did. He looked at the bags of ashes, didn't touch them. (For those of you who have never seen human ashes - they look like, well, ashes. Possibly could be confused with gunpowder). Well, the agent didn't know what to do.

I offered to show him the paperwork as some sort of "proof" as to what it was, but he wasn't interested. He called a supervisor over. The Supervisor asked, "did you try the quarter test?" The answer was no, so they tried the "quarter test" which is placing a quarter in a bin, then putting the box on top of the bin and running it through x-ray to see if they could see through it. Mind you, they have not yet run a chemical scan on this - they're more worried that they can't see through it. The ashes fail the quarter test (they're quite dense, and my dad was a big guy - 6'3", 220 lbs). Now what.

They ask when my plane is (I should have said in 5 minutes - they might have let me go) and I replied that I had some time. So they call a manager from another gate. The manager comes over in about 3 minutes, they explain what they've done and ask the manager what to do. (I should tell you, that during all of this, they were most respectful, almost a little embarrassed, and saying that they knew this was a sensitive issue, and were sorry for my loss, yada, yada, yada. Well, mom and dad died several years before and I was over my grief, and I was trying my damndest to not laugh - my family has a warped sense of humor, and I knew my dad would be cracking up.)

The manager thinks for a moment and says, "Sir, I know this is probably going to be difficult for you, but I'm going to ask you to pick up the bag of ashes and move it around so I can see that there is nothing else in the bag." Seriously. So I did, still trying not to laugh at having to "feel up" my father. And the manager is satisfied, but his comment was a little strange. He said, "Well, I'll make an exception in this case, but I don't have to let you through." (I would've liked to see the rule that says you can't carry human remains on board.) So, I seal up the box and start to go, when all of a sudden the manager asks, "You did swab it, didn't you?" The embarrassed first agent says, "uh..., no."

So before they'd let me go, they did the chemical thing on the box and on my hands. They're still trying to remain respectful, and I'm still trying not to laugh at them. It seems to me that the FIRST thing they should've done was swab it, but hey, I'm not an expert.

All the grandkids now tell the story about the time that grandpa got "strip searched" at the airport.

Another story about security - Empire State Building. They have a metal detector and an x-ray. I fly a lot, so I know the drill and empty my pockets with change, and I have a money clip with a blade in it (I do NOT carry it on the plane because I've been told it would be confiscated, but didn't even think about security at ESB.) They run my wife's purse, and the little change thing with my change, keys, and money clip, and they confiscate the money clip. I argued a little, but made sure I could come back and get it. After going to the top of the ESB, I came back down, retrieved my dinky little "knife" and told the supervisor - "You might want to train your x-ray operators a little better - you confiscated my 1" knife and let my wife's swiss army knife go."

Posted by Rob, Chico, CA on September 25, 2007:

I'm a fairly frequent flyer out of our local airport, which means, like Randy, I have to take a "puddle jumper" from my home town to San Fransisco (the only place they fly) to fly anywhere else. I have a couple of conundrums, and a few comments.

If it's the policy of the airlines that you MUST not be wearing headphones during take-offs and landings why do the pilots often come on and tell you that you can listen in on the tower chatter on channel 9? Am I supposed to put my ear up to the hole in the arm rest?

I realize that the announcements come over that line, but how then do the FAs tell if I'm hooked into the "legal" jack and not my iPod sitting right next to the armrest?

And speaking of iPods, why is it ok to turn on your cell phone immediately after clearing the runway on landing, but not to turn on an mp3 player until you're off the aircraft?

I've worked with the FAA and several of the other organizations associated with them and a more conservative bunch you will never meet. As a general rule they are reactive organizations, meaning that they act primarily only when something goes wrong. Like the stock market being based on a perception of worth, not actual value, it's the job of TSA to make you "feel" safe, not to actually make you safe. So when some moron thinks he can blow up a plane by stuffing his shoes with an explosive, the rest of us have to remove our shoes now and forever. The bottom line on that perception is that you can't guard against an inside job.

In one of the comments here someone mentioned that Israel's security forces screen for terrorists, not drinking water and I thought it was pretty apt. When was the last time you heard of an Israeli plane being hijacked? or bombed?

After 9/11 I and a whole bunch of my colleagues agreed that we needed a professional federal airport security force, well paid and trained. We still do.

For the most part, the TSA security I've dealt with have been pretty good overall. Locally at our small airport, I actually know several of them and they are a pretty professional bunch, unfortunately that's not the norm. At the larger airports there have been several incidents over stupid and seemingly inflexible and randomly enforced "rules". I won't go into the many stories as there are a ton posted here already, but suffice it to say that we would all be better served by a well trained and paid security. Emphasis on the trained.

Posted by Jim, Calabasas, CA on September 25, 2007:

I fly almost every week, and I'm constantly annoyed by the Golden Rule of takeoffs: "Raise all seatbacks to their original upright positions." Most airline seats are extremely uncomfortable when fully upright, as you are often sitting with a slight forward pitch. Even a one inch drop makes all the difference, but the Aisle Hawks correct you every time. Why? I've always thought that they do it because if the plane crashes, having the seat upright will help keep all your body parts together, facilitating identification.

---

It's so that in case of emergency, people can get up and get out of the seat rows and leave the plane. If the seats are back, they make it hard for the people behind you to stand up, and thus escape.

I don't have a problem with rules that make sense. In my case, they apparently want me to take off the headphones so I can hear announcements during emergency situations. But taking them off makes it harder for me to hear instructions, and meanwhile makes me uncomfortable. That just doesn't make any sense. -rc

Posted by John, Dallas on September 25, 2007:

I fly about weekly, and am amazed at the wide variety of "rules" I run across. I've become convinced that TSA doesn't have a codified set of rules but, rather, allows each airport to "do their own thing". What is OK at one airport is, literally, a federal offense at another.

In the name of "leaving common sense at home", I went through screening at DFW with admittedly a 6.5 oz of toothpaste. However, it was squeezed to within an inch (actually, probably a half inch) of its life, and anyone could clearly see, with the tube 95% flattened out, that, perhaps, a few days' product remained. Not good enough for TSA though. The on-the-ball screener pointed out that my container was greater than 3 ounces (she must have paid attention during that day of training) and, therefore, it was not allowed. I pointed out that the tube was all but completely flat, but that made no difference. I gave her the tube, wished her happy brushing, and went on my way.

I'm all for security, but have become convinced that common sense has no place in a airport screening line as some of the screeners just aren't capable of exercising it.

Posted by Gary, Chicago on September 25, 2007:

I had to fly to Kansas City on short notice for a technical problem. At the last minute I decided I might need a few hand tools and threw a wire cutter, a wire crimper and a small screwdriver in my carry on. I'm still used to the old allowances for carry on. Anyway, as I'm going through the security check, sure enough, they see the stuff on the X-Ray and pull the bag for an inspection. End result, they kept the crimper because it was more then 7 inches long, but let me get on board with a 6 inch, narrow bladed screwdriver that I could easily use as a dagger. I shook my head, wished them a nice day and expensed the crimper.

Posted by Alix, Calgary, Canada on September 25, 2007:

I've encountered the no-headsets what-so-ever rule before. A friendly flight attendant on WestJet explained that there was a federal regulation prohibiting wearing of headsets, or even having them draped around your neck because they could decapitate you in the event of an emergency. No idea if this is the actual logic behind the rule or not, but it's certainly amusing.

Posted by Rob, Lexington Park, MD on September 25, 2007:

The no electronics rule has to do with potential interference between some forms of electronics and the plane. The no headphones rule probably has to do with the fear that you'll be blasting your music and would be unable to hear emergency announcements. The problem is that a flight attendant is just a flight attendant. They are not qualified to determine what forms of electronics would interfere with the plane. I solve the headset dilemma by waiting until they are told to sit down for takeoff and then I put on my cancellation headset.

Posted by Crag, NJ on September 25, 2007:

This summer my wife and I flew SW to/from Florida for an 8-day cruise. On the trip to FL, we got bumped from our initial flight and got to spend the morning and most of the afternoon in the terminal. My wife took the time to take a nap, waking in time to get onto the plane. As we're pushing back from the jetway, the FA makes the 'turn off cell phone' announcement. My wife goes to turn hers off and finds it had dropped out of her pocket while she napped. We talk to a FA, who contacted the gate agent and shortly came back to tell us that they had found her phone. She says that they'd send it to FL on the first flight the next day. Since we'd be departing on the cruise, we wouldn't be able to retrieve the phone. We ask if they could hold it or mail it to our home for us. Give her our address, flight info, etc. Comes back a little later and says they'll hold it for us. Minor problem solved.

Return from FL, check with the gate and ask about the phone. They say it should be with the supervisor at the ticket counter. Go there and get told that after 5 days they send any 'lost' item to SW's Dallas lost & found. Get a phone number that goes directly to a voicemail system, that says, "Describe your item and we'll contact you if we find it." Oh darn, phone is history.

The day before we're to return. I attempted to get our boarding passes on line. (Cruise ship's ridiculously expensive Internet cafe.) Get a message that there's a problem with our reservation and we can't get the boarding pass on-line. At the airport, find out that I'd won the random search lottery (after initially being told I was on the government's no-fly list!) and get boarding passes. SW has cattle call seating, so getting an early boarding pass gets you a better choice of seats. Having to wait until at the airport, garnered us "C" group passes assuring us middle seats and no stowage. I understand the random search process, but can't fathom why they couldn't log when we attempted to get our boarding pass and reserve a pass that has whatever group was available at that time.

The 'reservation problem' was diagnosed by our friends as a 'random search' indicator before we left the ship, so it's of little value to anyone who is intent on doing harm, just transfer any item of interest to a colleague who wasn't so lucky.

Posted by Michele in Toronto on September 25, 2007:

Some airlines provide inexpensive headsets for use with the in-flight entertainment. The passenger across the aisle from me was going to plug his own headphones into his MP3 player, when the airline stewardess told him that he had to use the airline-provided headset! He didn't argue, but I'm not sure I understand the rationale.

---

Napoleon syndrome, again. -rc

Posted by Jean, El Cerrito, CA on September 25, 2007:

What bothers me about the whole security theater nonsense at the airport is the abuse of their petty power by TSA and others. If you make a ruckus, you get singled out for additional screening and pat down searches; nothing to do with suspicious behavior, just being flustered and upset at the idiotic rules, which then causes the TSA types to retaliate and subject you to additional searches. I sent a complaint to DHS about this abuse of discretion by using additional screening as a retaliatory or punitive action by the screeners. Not expecting that complaint to get anywhere...

Also, if you have an altercation with an airline employee, they seem to have the abusive power to mark your name in their passenger database so that you have to go through full secondary screening searches EVERY time you fly that stupid airline (happened to my wife on one of the interisland airlines in Hawaii so we can't fly any major carrier that contracts with that airline for interisland flights because the entire party will get the full search every single flight (she was with our two kids and her niece (ages 3, 9, 14) and all four of them were subject to full searches courtesy of that interisland airline). Complaining about it only seemed to reinforce her presence on the extra searching name list...

Posted by Luqman, Trinidad on September 26, 2007:

To Derek of Jersey, British Isles: Mythbusters, a US TV show dedicated to busting Myths & tall tales, tested a theory of whether throwing ammo into a fire could cause injury. They found that while the fireworks are explosive, the chances of you killing yourself are very slim. They surrounded a fire with Ballistic Gel material which simulates human skin and remotely tossed in shells that ranged from .22 caliber to .50 caliber. They found the most dangerous shells were the .22 caliber shells because the shell (not the bullet) had almost as much mass as the bullet and as such it would fly apart much easier than larger caliber bullets which tended to explode. I think they have a video on their website: http://www.discovery.com/mythbusters

Posted by Luqman, Trinidad on September 26, 2007:

So I've come to the conclusion that TSA's rules and arbitrary & capricious. My name is Luqman Abdur Rahman Mahmud. Yes, it's a Muslim, Arabic name. I used to fly on a weekly basis to customer sites for work. After 9/11, it got so bad with the secondary searches & 3 strip searches over the course of 2 flights that I begged my management not to send me on anymore trips and to give me local assignments only. I used to love to fly. I fear it now since I get flagged from the moment I buy my ticket. And let's not even discuss the time I missed my connection in Miami and had to buy a one way ticket. Whoo boy! That was a good one. I arrived 3 hours early (I always do that now because I know I've got "MAD TERRORIST" tattooed across my forehead). After getting sideways looks from the ticket agent (who had to call a supervisor to check my ID) since I made the mistake of giving her my passport instead of my driver's license (I didn't feel like digging in my bag for it and since I just came off an International flight the night before, my passport was handier), I knew it was going to be a long day.

Got to the TSA security screening and the woman looks at my passport, looks at me, looks at my passport again (I guess sporting a goatee in person but not on my passport caused problems). Then comes security. I had rid my person of all metal but as soon as the TSA guy takes my ticket, he calls for a secondary check. So I get my hands checked for explosives, my bag checked, then I get to go back in a room where they ask me to remove all my clothing except my underwear while they search it and my person. Since this had happened to me before, I didn't bother asking why they were checking me. BIG MISTAKE! Apparently, not bothering to ask flags you as suspicious, so after finding nothing on my clothes, some guy comes in to ask questions like, "Why did I check in so early?", "where was I coming from?", "Why did I buy a one way ticket?, "Why didn't I ask why the screeners singled me out?" It took almost an hour to get out of there.

Then I find my checked bag had been searched (I had a TSA approved lock on it) and I was missing my bug repellent (apparently, it must have bomb like properties) and my toolkit (I'm an IT person). That was the last straw for me. Now I only travel when it is absolutely necessary. Always use a credit card to buy my ticket. Always buy round trip tickets and never take anything suspicious in my checked or carryon luggage. I sometimes even avoid taking my laptop.

And here is why I think they are arbitrary: I have flown with tools, wires, chargers and even flammable liquids (my cologne) in my carry on bags and never been stopped. In fact, the day I was searched and my toolkit stolen, I had a bottle of cologne and other items in my carryon that could be considered "dangerous" that weren't taken. Consistency is the key to El-Al's security. Why can't TSA hire away say the head of El-Al's security team to come and run the TSA program here in the states? Heck, I'd gladly pay an extra tax to create a fund to hire some of those guys. Instead we have such wonderful examples of our government dollars at work.

Posted by Bradley from Canberra on September 26, 2007:

I always use my noise-cancelling headphones, even if the plane doesn't have any audio. A few times I have been asked to switch them off during take-off and landing. While the risk might be negligible, it is no inconvenience. I've been asked if I can hear properly during the safety demo. In fact, I can probably hear better than the other passengers. Noise-cancelling headphones work best against a continuous drone, whereas speaking is too varied in pitch to be blocked. Despite the passive attenuation, the active attenuation actually helps hear other things. And saying rather than shouting "Yes, I can hear you perfectly" will usually be enough to convince them.

In Australia, mobile phones can be switched off just before the plane starts to taxi (unless you are boarding from the tarmac) and can be switched on just as the plane stops. It used to be "well inside the terminal building". Phones can now be used in Australia in "flight mode", so headphones aren't likely to be a problem.

When a flight attendant advises against using your own headphones it could just be because of the two-pin socket. Just buy an adapter from Radio Shack.

Changi Airport is quite nice. However the security check only occurs just before you reach the gate. I thought that this was strange, allowing someone to walk a long way into a building without challenge. However, the rationale is that otherwise someone could sneak through a check and spend time assembling a weapon and psyching up. Putting the security check just before a passport check and the boarding pass check is likely to baulk all but the most fanatical.

But when I left Changi for Japan last September, the security check wasn't so great. We were delayed because they had to fix the scanners. Once fixed, they were in a hurry. I was emptying my pockets to put through the scanner when the operator told me to just walk through the detector as it would be quicker. Naturally it went BEEP, responding to the coins, mobile phone and other things in my hands. I was wanded and since only the things in my hands went BEEP, I was OK to go. A wand can detect metal but it can't identify how sharp it is.

I was travelling on business when a colleague was given the bomb sniff test. She failed 3 times. But was allowed to board, perhaps because she looks like your favourite auntie. Sometimes you just have to accept that the machine isn't perfect.

The problem is trumped-up petty officers who do without thinking. Brisbane Airport used to be so bad. I once saw a basketball get scanned 6 times! But it has improved recently. Sydney Airport is much more efficient at scanning and client service.

Posted by Josh, Kansas City, KS on September 26, 2007:

I fly rather frequently (2-3 times a month), so I get to see all the updates to screening procedures as they are rolled out. My frustration begins with the inanity of some of the requirements, but it is heightened by the inconsistent enforcement from week to week and from airport to airport.

The worst, in my opinion? Remember when the "shoe bomber" (I believe his name was Richard Reid) frantically tried to ignite some explosives that were hidden in the soles of his footwear? He was unsuccessful, but it quickly led to a new screening procedure for passengers' shoes. At every airport, people had to remove their shoes and run them through the metal detector. However, at MOST airports, people wearing tennis/athletic shoes were exempted from this requirement.

Here's the problem: Reid WAS WEARING TENNIS SHOES when he tried to carry out his attack!!! Seriously! How�what�huh? What kind of sense does this make?

Posted by Malcolm - Dickinson, TX on September 26, 2007:

The one thing I'll never understand is the requirement to remove your laptop from the bag. As if the x-ray can't see through leather. This sort of stupidity just makes me disrespect TSA more.

Posted by William in Indianapolis on September 26, 2007:

I am always told, "for my safety" I need to leave the window shade UP during take-off. I've never been offered any explanation of why this makes me any safer, and I certainly do not feel any safer by complying. Do they think the pilot actually needs a rear view through my window, or what? Can anyone tell me why this makes me safer?

---

I believe it's for rescuers to see in, in case of crash or similar emergency on take-off. -rc

Posted by Joel- Texas/ India on September 27, 2007:

I also fly quite often as I live in South Texas and work in India -- 28 days on/ 28 days off. On one of my last flights there was a gentleman sitting close to me who had the "Noise Cancelling" headphones on. I on the other hand had the airline headphones on listening to the music. The flight attendant came around, and when she noticed that he had them on quite rudely demanded that he take them off for the take off. I heard this and asked if I needed to take my headphones off also, to which she replied No Sir, you may leave your on since they are part of the aircraft. Needless to say the other passenger was a little perturbed, which I would have been also. HE started to raise a fuss about it, but I took mine off during lift off mainly due to the ignorance of the whole situation.

Posted by Ryan, Daytona Beach on September 27, 2007:

William,

Randy is exactly correct. The reason we require window shades to be up during takeoff and landing is so that in the event of an emergency the FAs can readily see out of the aircraft to assess any potential dangers (smoke, fire, debris, water, etc.) before opening the emergency exits. But also, so that rescuers can see in.

Posted by Tom in Long Beach, CA on September 27, 2007:

In response to Sarah in New Albany.

One thing you need to watch when checking your bags is the scale. Almost every airport I have gone too and every scale for the luggage has been not "zeroed". Usually my bags are always well under the weight limit but this caused a problem on a trip from Louisville, KY to Long Beach, CA after Christmas.

When I approached the counter and prepared to lift the bag onto the scale I noticed the digital readout said 9 LBS. When I placed my bag on the scale it came to 54 LBS. 4 over the limit.

I was informed by the agent that my bag was too heavy and it would cost me $50.00 US to check it. I told her that my bag was actually 45 LBS and that her scale was incorrectly showing 9 LBS too much. I then removed the bag and showed her the 9 on the readout while the scale was empty. She looked at it and back at me and said she saw no problem! She said the 9 was the weight of the steel platform and that it was normal. My attempts to explain that you need to zero a scale before placing the weight on it elicited a blank stare. No, she wasn't blonde. My pointing out that the scale at the next counter was also empty yet it showed 5 LBS got a slightly different reaction. She ignored me and asked if I would be paying by Visa or Mastercard!

Attempts to get a supervisor were fruitless as apparently they don't have any at Louisville Intl. Airport. In the end I was told to pay the $50 or find another flight. So I chose option B and called my credit card company to put a charge back on the ticket cost.

It has been 2 years since this happened. I have not flown Delta since and have never heard from them regarding my canceled payment for the flight.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on September 27, 2007:

I've been flying commercial airlines for 35 years and I've encountered many of the stories on here. For you indignant FA's out there that insist we MUST understand the rules, I've heard the safety announcements so often that I can recite them to you in my sleep. So even without headsets, I'm just not interested. Really. You're making noise. So I close my eyes, tune you out, and ignore you. What are you going to do, kick me off the plane in midair? Them that wanna listen, will. Them that don't, won't. Do your little speech, give yourself a gold star, and realize that nobody really gives a crap.

The previous comments go a LONG way to explaining why airlines are losing money. But they won't pay attention. It MUST be something else; it couldn't possibly be the airlines' fault. Unfortunately, when companies refuse to listen to their customers, then the only time they realize the truth is after it's too late and they're going out of business. And even then, it's still the customers' fault for not telling the company earlier.

I have no sympathy for the airlines. In the 60's, and even 70's. it was called the Jet Set. But by the 80's, the airlines were nothing more than expensive cattle cars. Now, as one commenter described it, they're just flying gulags.

As a final caution, when a flight is overbooked and they ask for volunteers to take a later flight, they do also offer a voucher good for a free flight at a later date. Just try to use it. They're good for one year, but only so many seats are set aside and those seats just never seem to be available anytime during the year. So why screw up your schedule for their lack of ability to run their company, and a worthless voucher?

Posted by Bill Charleston SC on September 27, 2007:

I also travel a lot, I escort federal prisoners back and forth from country to country and as Law Enforcement officer am required to carry a weapon on the plane. I was leaving my home base of Charleston SC to take three prisoners back to Greece. We had to fly from Charleston, to Atlanta, then to NY then to Greece. I was armed and wearing a badge. Prisoners were in shackles. Normally they put us on the plane first then off last. We were to clear the TSA gate and as we were going through security, I was asked by a TSA agent to remove my shoes. I refused. She Demanded.

I then asked her why I had to take off my shoes as I pointed at my badge and gun on my belt. She said I'd have to take my boots off to make sure I wasn't taking anything "dangerous" onto the plane. I then asked for her supervisor. Another TSA agent come over and again demanded I take my boots off. I then asked her why I needed to remove my boots. She said, "Sir, We need for you to remove your boots so we can make sure you have nothing to endanger the plane." I then pointed to my badge and gun and said in my nicest voice, "You mean more dangerous than this gun?" At which time I was asked to leave the line.

I immediately went to the Airport Police Office and cleared the whole thing up. The funniest thing was that as the shift supervisor of the Airport Police was escorting me back through Security the TSA agents had their supervisor on the phone informing him that I was still being allowed on the plane without removing my shoes. Still no mention of my credentials or my gun. Talk about security.

Posted by Dana, Washington on September 29, 2007:

Catherine in Toronto wrote: I've flown El Al a few times, and their security is about as different from the TSA as you can get. El Al, strangely enough, screens for *terrorists*.

That's the difference in a nutshell. There are up to 500 passengers on a plane. Each one will probably have at least 2 pieces of luggage (checked and carry-on). Each bag can have up to hundreds of individual items in it.

It's an awful lot more practical for trained security people to check out 500 people than 500,000 separate objects!!

Posted by Frances, Columbia South Carolina on September 29, 2007:

Boy oh boy, is all of this so very true. I can no longer fly because I am disabled and can only sit for short periods. By the time we go through airport's "security", etc. and are allowed to board (if plane isn't delayed!), I have sat as long as I can. (I have a fracture in my back that cannot be operated on.) Then, it's forever on the tarmac. Planes are frightfully crowded, and I cannot afford first class.

Flight attendants seem to have gotten ruder, too. I use a walker and at times need a wheelchair. Even if I'm lucky enough to get a bulkhead seat, I still have my knees in my nose! I am so very glad that I have been there, done that and bought the tee shirt all over the world. My air travel days are over!

Posted by Susan, Tallahassee, FL on October 2, 2007:

I had forgotten that I had a pair of cuticle scissors in my carry-on bag (the kind with blades about 1/4" long). The guards made me dig through my bag until I found them, then gave me the "choice" of calling someone to come get them or giving them up. Like someone I know is going to drive out to the airport for a pair of teensy scissors? I gave them up. What did the guards think I was going to do--threaten to manicure someone if they didn't take me where I wanted to go? Even if I poked someone with the scissors, they would barely be injured. A sharp nail file could do more damage.

Posted by Dominik, Australia on October 12, 2007:

I haven't had time to read all the replies to this, but I felt I should say something to fellow parents on the issue of the child restraints. I was puzzled to hear that in the US this device is not approved, as I am a frequent traveler, having done the intercontinental journey to Europe numerous times, in some cases with my small children, and it has never been a problem. In fact most (non-US) airlines now offer such a device for children under 2 for takeoff and landing and make sure it is used. Its astonishing that everywhere else, they follow common sense, while in the US, they put children up to unnecessary risk because of stupid outdated rules!

Posted by Lisa, Ontario on October 13, 2007:

The next time I have to travel a long distance I'm taking the train instead of a plane. It may not be as fast but it sure has a lot more class.

Posted by Samuel, Chico, CA. on November 27, 2007:

I don't remember all the details, such as what airline we were flying on, but I did have an encounter that caused my wife and I unnecessary anger. While waiting for takeoff from the Sacramento "International" airport we had been bumped from our flight and had to wait four hours for another flight. I quote-marked international because all long distance flights from the State capitol are then routed to San Francisco before they actually go anywhere. Our wait time exceeded the drive time to a real airport. That's not the thing that incensed us.

When we did enplane we were seated in the rear of the flight with three small, unkempt and loud children in front. They screamed and climbed over and around the seats and even toddled around in the aisles without much oversight from their mother or the flight attendants. Not complaining to either mother or attendants but simply commenting on our un-envied situation, perhaps too loudly, brought three attendants to US threatening to have US removed from the flight for causing a disturbance. In retrospect we probably should have left and proceeded with actions against the airline and their employees, but I had to be in New York the next morning so I had little choice but to take what these women forced upon us. Never again.

Posted by Joe, Ohio on January 27, 2010:

Yeah, I actually quit my job because they made me fly too much. Everyone was wanting to take a car and I was no different. It finally came to a head and I said to myself - how long will this be this bad or will it even get worse? You guessed it - it got worse - goodbye job. Too bad I really like that job while it lasted but even now when I have to fly I dread it. These dolts just go through the motions and I'm white so I get searched all the time. Ridiculous.

Posted by Erik from Seattle on February 21, 2010:

After reading many of these comments, and thinking about the situation and other similar articles I've read about airline "security". Where are the rebuttals or confirmations from the security personnel who have to follow these rules in the first place? I'd love to hear their side of the story.