Ban on Electronic Devices on Flights to US

According to Sunday and Monday's news reports (May 28-29) and papers, the laptop (electronic devices larger than a cell phone) ban could extend to all flights leaving and returning to the US.

 

A laptop ban is on the table and may extend to all international flights, US Homeland chief says

 

U.S. might ban laptops on all flights into and out of the country

 

And here is TSA's definition of electronic devices. It includes cameras.

 

Fact Sheet: Aviation Security Enhancements for Select Last Point of Departure Airports with Commercial Flights to the United States | Homeland Security

 

Fortunately for me this was a non issue when I returned to the US from Europe on May 25. After observing all of the devices used by passengers on my return flight, if and when this ban is implemented will create major issues for passengers, security personnel, baggage handlers etc and many others.

 

I certainly would make sure that your electronic devices are insured under a separate insurance policy or rider and that the insurance will fully cover any loss or damage to such devices if they are in checked or lost luggage. I would anticipate that some checked luggage with electronic devices might not make your connecting flight as these bags will be subjected to additional screening processes.

 

Based on my May 11-25 trip, you need 2-3 hours to make an international transfer in Europe. And three hours is what I would try and plan for if possible. Even without this ban, anything and everything could happen to you when transferring. Both of my two international transfers required more than one hour to get through the whole process. And on one, the plane arrive over an hour late.

It will be a major issue for me, depending on what's called a "large electronic device. It will weigh heavily on my travel choices. Among other things, it's going to be hard to keep under the 40 lbs limit imposed by union rules on luggage, and store laptop and possibly cameras in checked baggage, not to mention a grave security risk from loss or damage. Unfortunately the proposed ban is a reactionary response to ongoing threats, with little practical benefit other than "feel-good" for the uninformed masses. If something is dangerous in the cabin, how is it less dangerous in the belly of the plane? Hopefully I won't have to check lenses and passive peripherals, but after experience at some airports, it's hard to say.

 

What's really needed is better screening equipment and policies, which are both expensive and politically unpopular. If flying is a privilege, why not institute a system of background checks and secure identification, which can be done off-line rather than strictly at the terminal. Oh wait! It's called GOES in the US.

 

The safest plane is one that flies empty or doesn't fly at all, but that's not what airplanes (or ships) are for.

Ed, I agree with you 100%. The real issue is the "person", not what he/she has in cabin or has checked.

 

I bet the airlines will have their own definitions of what is or is not an in cabin electronic device. Air travelers are definitly going to have to look at the airlines' websites .too for information.

If the threat is real, it's hard to justify placing the ban only on flights coming in from selected countries - batteries could be replaced with explosives just as easily here. Limiting such a ban would inevitably raise questions about the validity of the threat.

 

Pretty much all of the devices that Homeland Security is considering in the proposed ban are powered by rechargeable lithium batteries, which have already been banned from the cargo holds of passenger aircraft due to fire hazards. Banning them from carry-on bans them from aircraft altogether. The airlines are upset about this because it will heavily affect business travelers, the people who traditionally pay the highest airfares. They see serious money at risk.

 

I suppose I could consider the battery in my camera as disposable - remove it and toss before getting to gate security, but that will only work if TSA allows the gate agents to make the decision to allow the camera without a battery onto the plane. Checking the camera body and taking all my other gear (lenses, memory cards, filters, etc) on as carry-on will only work if the TSA agents understand that those items aren't what the ban is aimed at and if TSA allows the agents the latitude to make such decisions. If this approach is tried, inconsistent decisionmaking by TSA agents would cause a lot of howling.

 

Interestingly, a possible alternate solution is currently being tested at several US airports, including the one here in Las Vegas. Those going through security today must put each electronic device in a plastic bucket by itself to go through the security x-ray, where the items get enhanced examination. If this approach is found to be effective, it may preclude the all-out ban, but the wait times getting through security are taking a serious hit. Lots of tourists who are unaware of the test process are complaining very loudly about the added time required by the security system. It would also pretty much eliminate the Trusted Known Traveler system that a lot of people paid fees for, and those people will probably be demanding their money back (including me).

(...) The real issue is the "person", not what he/she has in cabin or has checked.

 

And the almost LEAST dangerous person is the passenger. Here's my risk assessment from most dangerous to least:

• Pilot: He or she can crash the plane anywhere, anytime. No need to smuggle anything onto the plane.
  
• Ground-to-air guided missiles (like the one in Crimea that took down a commercial airliner).
  
• Baggage handlers, they have access to all checked baggage. Some just steal our cameras; others can plant bombs.
  
• Cabin crew: They can cause equipment failures, set fires or poison the passengers (are you sure you want to eat those nuts?) and can easily access the cockpit.
   
  
• Hijackers: They are now locked out of the cockpit but could kill passengers or set fire to the plane.
  
• Ordinary passengers: They have the same limited opportunities as hijackers.
  
• Meal caterers: another poison risk.
  

The National Safety Council compiled an odds-of-dying table for 2008 that compares the relative risks of flying and driving safety. It calculated the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident to be 1 in 98 for a lifetime. For air and space transport (including air taxis and private flights), the odds were 1 in 7,178 for a lifetime.

 

Note that the risk factor includes private flights, which are much more dangerous than commercial airliners.

 

 

My daughter is a ticket/boarding agent at an international airport. Because of the restrictions on carry-on liquids, she gets lots of gifts from passengers who leave the secure area to return to the check-in desk to check their potentially dangerous liquids. Its usually too late, so the passenger gives them to her. Every week she brings home at least one item. Maple syrup, wine, whiskey, unusual liqueurs, jellies and jams, exotic cooking sauces, cosmetics, etc. Of course, the passenger should know the rules. But the rules are not of much use.

 

The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters so now they are banned. No problem, a well placed stab with a ball point pen can incapacitate or kill someone. You just have to Google it first and practise on something (or someone) before boarding your flight.

Airport security is a bit of a joke. We just came back from Amsterdam and my wife had a pair of nail clippers confiscated at security. While waiting for our flight she did a little duty free shopping. She bought a 3 pack of cheese. It came with a free cheese knife; that has a very sharp 4 inch blade.

Airport security is a bit of a joke. We just came back from Amsterdam and my wife had a pair of nail clippers confiscated at security. While waiting for our flight she did a little duty free shopping. She bought a 3 pack of cheese. It came with a free cheese knife; that has a very sharp 4 inch blade.

 

I'd say that was a loophole - but only if it was Swiss cheese.

Having seen on more than one occasion how luggage handler throw around luggage, I can't imagine ever checking my camera equipment.

Not allowed to have my tablet in the cabin - there goes the in-flight entertainment since many planes no longer have any seat-back displays and only the crappy overhead TV screens.

If something is dangerous in the cabin, how is it less dangerous in the belly of the plane?

My point exactly!

rechargeable lithium batteries, which have already been banned from the cargo holds of passenger aircraft due to fire hazards. Banning them from carry-on bans them from aircraft altogether.

Yep, no need to bring any camera equipment if the batteries aren't allowed on the plane.

I suppose I could consider the battery in my camera as disposable

Say what? At $50 - $75 a battery, I am not going to throw them away every time I fly.

When I postulated about considering a camera battery as disposable, I was thinking only of my own situation - retired and going to Europe in a couple of months for our 50th anniversary at a cost of $10,000. If TSA would let me take an otherwise banned camera so long as it has no battery (big IF - TSA would have to let its gate agents have the latitude to make such decisions), I could toss the battery before boarding to come back to the US. But I'd have to be certain I'd be allowed to bring the camera. Imagine seeing on a TSA website that it's OK, but getting a gate agent who disallows it. What do you do with the camera standing there at security with a plane to catch?

 

Another perspective: a few years ago I flew from here (Vegas) to Kalispell, MT, rented a car, and spent a week in Glacier NP. If I won't be able to take may cameras, I'll drive next time, and airlines will only sell me a ticket when it's impossibly far to drive (and I'm retired - I have time).

Air travel has been becoming increasingly unpleasant, both due to the security charade and the ever decreasing personal space and amenities on flights. We will be driving unless that is impossible, and in those cases we will operate on a "need to go" basis.

If the electronics ban were extended to domestic (US) travel, I might use a Pelican case along with a (legal, unloaded) firearm. That lets (requires) you use real padlocks, although you may be called to open it for TSA inspection (hasn't happened yet). That works only if you're traveling to a free state (or California), not one of the blue northeastern estuaries. I had one "lost" on the tarmac one time. The airline was on the phone immediately, and hand-delivered it to me the next day.

I just saw this post about a photographer who has flown with his photo equipment to Turkey. He describes in detail what to do and not to do.

 

https://photographylife.com/electronics-carry-on-ban/

Also, for flights to the UK from certain countries, the UK Department of Transport has specific restrictions for incabin baggage and hold baggage. See this link:

Additional hand luggage restrictions on some flights to the UK - GOV.UK