Airports to ban cigarette lighters beyond checkpoints

[Martin Hotze]

land of the free
land of the brave
land of the save

ridicolous .....


http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/10539621.htm

--- snip ---
Posted on Fri, Dec. 31, 2004

Airports to ban cigarette lighters beyond checkpoints

BY BRYON OKADA
Knight Ridder Newspapers

FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - In what could become a major hassle for air
travelers who smoke, the Homeland Security Department will ban all
cigarette lighters beyond airport checkpoints beginning Feb. 15.

The Intelligence Reform Bill that President Bush signed Dec. 17 orders the
Transportation Security Administration to review its banned-items list and
to prohibit passengers from carrying butane lighters aboard planes.
Legislation stipulates that the ban must be in place in 60 days.

"We are reviewing the necessary changes that the Transportation Security
Administration will need to make based on the new intelligence
legislation," TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said.

The TSA may also expand the banned-items list to include matches, aviation
industry sources have said. No decision has been made, according to one TSA
official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

But if a ban is enacted, it isn't clear how screeners would detect matches,
short of a time-consuming physical search.

In 2003, former TSA head James Loy determined that two lighters and four
books of matches were "an acceptable level of risk" to balance security and
customer service. But over the next year, Loy's decision was criticized as
too lax.

After all, two U.S. senators argued last year, would-be terrorist Richard
Reid was one match strike away from igniting explosives in the heel of his
shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight.
[...]
--- snap ---


--
Oh. God. What have we done.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 09:02:06 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >::

>Airports to ban cigarette lighters beyond checkpoints

This TSA policy of banning 'scary' items that have any potential at
all for use by terrorists is futile and if carried to its extreme,
will result in only nude passengers drugged into unconsciousness being
permitted airline travel. If it is TSA's intent to deny passengers
the ability to start a fire while occupying an airliner cabin, they're
going to have to include a lot more than butane lighters: burning
lens, the bow drill, flint & steel, potassium permanganate and
glycerin, piezo crystals, batteries, even the electrical wiring to the
overhead reading light. In the end, airline travel itself will have
to be banned to satisfy the Neanderthal TSA mentality.

Welcome to the 21st century. :-(

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:40:15 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>Welcome to the 21st century. :-(

your 21st century, that is. (but we are at our best way to copy all the bad
things as we did during the last centuries).

I don't know if this all will help improve general aviation.

#m
--
Oh. God. What have we done.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:50:36 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >::

>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:40:15 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>Welcome to the 21st century. :-(
>
>your 21st century, that is. (but we are at our best way to copy all the bad
>things as we did during the last centuries).

As I recall, Germany perpetrated some of its own original "bad things"
in the last century that weren't copied from anyone else. :-(

>I don't know if this all will help improve general aviation.

The airlines are shaking in their boots over the TSA's imposition of
repugnant (pseudo) security measures on its customers. With corporate
GA gaining ground every day as a result, airlines are seeing their
monopoly on air travel crumble before their eyes like the WTC towers.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 14:03:59 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>>your 21st century, that is. (but we are at our best way to copy all the bad
>>things as we did during the last centuries).
>
>As I recall, Germany perpetrated some of its own original "bad things"
>in the last century that weren't copied from anyone else. :-(

let's agree to disagree there.

>>I don't know if this all will help improve general aviation.
>
>The airlines are shaking in their boots over the TSA's imposition of
>repugnant (pseudo) security measures on its customers. With corporate
>GA gaining ground every day as a result, airlines are seeing their
>monopoly on air travel crumble before their eyes like the WTC towers.

but only the wealthier people can afford those trips. Joe Average can't
afford a general aviation type of flight across Europe or the USA (within
reasonable time, means: turboprop or jet)

#m
--
Oh. God. What have we done.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 14:11:58 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote in >::

>On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 14:03:59 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:
[...[
>>>I don't know if this all will help improve general aviation.
>>
>>The airlines are shaking in their boots over the TSA's imposition of
>>repugnant (pseudo) security measures on its customers. With corporate
>>GA gaining ground every day as a result, airlines are seeing their
>>monopoly on air travel crumble before their eyes like the WTC towers.
>
>but only the wealthier people can afford those trips. Joe Average can't
>afford a general aviation type of flight across Europe or the USA (within
>reasonable time, means: turboprop or jet)

Right. The airlines are seeing their most profitable customer base
(corporate/business air travel) steadily erode due to the airlines'
shortsighted attempt to be all things to all travelers on every
flight. And the TSA's inane pseudo security impositions are the last
straw in bringing the airline industry to its knees.

Unfortunately, the airlines' response is to attempt to impede GA,
rather than rethink their operational structure. What's the name of
that river in Egypt, denial? :-)

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
> The airlines are shaking in their boots over the TSA's imposition of
> repugnant (pseudo) security measures on its customers. With corporate
> GA gaining ground every day as a result, airlines are seeing their
> monopoly on air travel crumble before their eyes like the WTC towers.


I guess you missed this part of the article:

Other industry observers have said it is disheartening that the TSA and Congress still must tinker with a security
problem brought to light in December 2001, rather than focusing on larger issues such as air cargo security or general
aviation security.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:20:08 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>::

>air cargo security or general aviation security.

The TSA may actually have a chance at success with air cargo security.
But until terrorists figure a way to kill thousands of innocent people
via that route, TSA will overlook it.

General aviation security is less of an issue than airline security,
because of the disparity in fuel capacity and passenger count between
a biz-jet and a B-747.

The current TSA focus on airline security is appropriate, but
successful security measures impose more harm (delays, indignities,
exasperation affecting hundreds of thousands of travelers) than the
terror they attempt to control, IMO.

[Andrew Sarangan]

I am not saying I agree with it, I am surprised why butane lighters were
allowed so far. Are nail clippers more dangerous than butane lighters
After all you can't smoke in the airplane anyway. Besides, didn't the
shoe bomber use a lighter?




Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

>
> land of the free
> land of the brave
> land of the save
>
> ridicolous .....
>
>
> http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/10539621.
h
> tm
>
> --- snip ---
> Posted on Fri, Dec. 31, 2004
>
> Airports to ban cigarette lighters beyond checkpoints
>
> BY BRYON OKADA
> Knight Ridder Newspapers
>
> FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - In what could become a major hassle for
> air travelers who smoke, the Homeland Security Department will ban all
> cigarette lighters beyond airport checkpoints beginning Feb. 15.
>
> The Intelligence Reform Bill that President Bush signed Dec. 17 orders
> the Transportation Security Administration to review its banned-items
> list and to prohibit passengers from carrying butane lighters aboard
> planes. Legislation stipulates that the ban must be in place in 60
> days.
>
> "We are reviewing the necessary changes that the Transportation
> Security Administration will need to make based on the new
> intelligence legislation," TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said.
>
> The TSA may also expand the banned-items list to include matches,
> aviation industry sources have said. No decision has been made,
> according to one TSA official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
>
> But if a ban is enacted, it isn't clear how screeners would detect
> matches, short of a time-consuming physical search.
>
> In 2003, former TSA head James Loy determined that two lighters and
> four books of matches were "an acceptable level of risk" to balance
> security and customer service. But over the next year, Loy's decision
> was criticized as too lax.
>
> After all, two U.S. senators argued last year, would-be terrorist
> Richard Reid was one match strike away from igniting explosives in the
> heel of his shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight.
> [...]
> --- snap ---
>
>

[Mike Granby]

> Besides, didn't the shoe bomber use a lighter?

I would have thought the explosives were the key element, not the
lighter. You might as well comment that he used a shoe...

[David Reinhart]

No, actually. He was trying to use a match when he was jumped by other pax.

Dave Reinhart


Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> I am not saying I agree with it, I am surprised why butane lighters were
> allowed so far. Are nail clippers more dangerous than butane lighters
> After all you can't smoke in the airplane anyway. Besides, didn't the
> shoe bomber use a lighter?
>
> Martin Hotze > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > land of the free
> > land of the brave
> > land of the save
> >
> > ridicolous .....
> >
> >
> > http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/10539621.
> h
> > tm
> >
> > --- snip ---
> > Posted on Fri, Dec. 31, 2004
> >
> > Airports to ban cigarette lighters beyond checkpoints
> >
> > BY BRYON OKADA
> > Knight Ridder Newspapers
> >
> > FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - In what could become a major hassle for
> > air travelers who smoke, the Homeland Security Department will ban all
> > cigarette lighters beyond airport checkpoints beginning Feb. 15.
> >
> > The Intelligence Reform Bill that President Bush signed Dec. 17 orders
> > the Transportation Security Administration to review its banned-items
> > list and to prohibit passengers from carrying butane lighters aboard
> > planes. Legislation stipulates that the ban must be in place in 60
> > days.
> >
> > "We are reviewing the necessary changes that the Transportation
> > Security Administration will need to make based on the new
> > intelligence legislation," TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said.
> >
> > The TSA may also expand the banned-items list to include matches,
> > aviation industry sources have said. No decision has been made,
> > according to one TSA official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
> >
> > But if a ban is enacted, it isn't clear how screeners would detect
> > matches, short of a time-consuming physical search.
> >
> > In 2003, former TSA head James Loy determined that two lighters and
> > four books of matches were "an acceptable level of risk" to balance
> > security and customer service. But over the next year, Loy's decision
> > was criticized as too lax.
> >
> > After all, two U.S. senators argued last year, would-be terrorist
> > Richard Reid was one match strike away from igniting explosives in the
> > heel of his shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight.
> > [...]
> > --- snap ---
> >
> >

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:37:15 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>The current TSA focus on airline security is appropriate, but
>successful security measures impose more harm (delays, indignities,
>exasperation affecting hundreds of thousands of travelers) than the
>terror they attempt to control, IMO.

who says that they want to control terror?
keep the people in fear and it will do what ever you want.

in other words: what do you _see_ as an outcome of the bombing in Madrid
(Spain)? [for sure: this was an awful attack, the people behind the scenes
are not 100% identified, and the government lost elections, etc. etc.] what
do you see as an outcome in Eastern Ireland or England?

#m
--
Oh. God. What have we done.

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>

To be honest, butane lighters should have been banned long ago. They are
explosive and can be very dangerous in the event of cabin depressurization.

[Dave S]

Whats the big deal? You can't smoke on the majority (or is it all?) of
US flights anyways?

Dave

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Whats the big deal? You can't smoke on the majority (or is it all?) of
>US flights anyways?

Because the nicotine addicted losers will freak if they have to wait for
their checked baggage before they can light up.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned
in school. -- A. Einstein

[Blueskies]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
> To be honest, butane lighters should have been banned long ago. They are
> explosive and can be very dangerous in the event of cabin depressurization.
>
>

I've taken a good Bic and threw it into a campfire one, just to see, and the plastic softened and it went pfffffft. no
big deal at all...

[NW_PILOT]

I bet one could collect a few books of matches a shoe string and a pill
bottle make their way to a bath room and make some nasty thing that can go
boom out of the mix. They allow the everclear in the water bottle past
security wonder what that and a tee-shirt would do monotof cocktail, perhaps
dump it on the floor to see how fast it can burn? Safety is all just an
illusion!!! you cannot stop anything that's going to happen from happening,
**** HAPPENS!!!! Even if we all were only allowed to board with only our
under garments.





"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>
> land of the free
> land of the brave
> land of the save
>
> ridicolous .....
>
>
> http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/10539621.htm
>
> --- snip ---
> Posted on Fri, Dec. 31, 2004
>
> Airports to ban cigarette lighters beyond checkpoints
>
> BY BRYON OKADA
> Knight Ridder Newspapers
>
> FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - In what could become a major hassle for air
> travelers who smoke, the Homeland Security Department will ban all
> cigarette lighters beyond airport checkpoints beginning Feb. 15.
>
> The Intelligence Reform Bill that President Bush signed Dec. 17 orders the
> Transportation Security Administration to review its banned-items list and
> to prohibit passengers from carrying butane lighters aboard planes.
> Legislation stipulates that the ban must be in place in 60 days.
>
> "We are reviewing the necessary changes that the Transportation Security
> Administration will need to make based on the new intelligence
> legislation," TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said.
>
> The TSA may also expand the banned-items list to include matches, aviation
> industry sources have said. No decision has been made, according to one
TSA
> official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
>
> But if a ban is enacted, it isn't clear how screeners would detect
matches,
> short of a time-consuming physical search.
>
> In 2003, former TSA head James Loy determined that two lighters and four
> books of matches were "an acceptable level of risk" to balance security
and
> customer service. But over the next year, Loy's decision was criticized as
> too lax.
>
> After all, two U.S. senators argued last year, would-be terrorist Richard
> Reid was one match strike away from igniting explosives in the heel of his
> shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight.
> [...]
> --- snap ---
>
>
> --
> Oh. God. What have we done.

[steve.t]

Now let me get this right. I may have my physics a bit wrong here so
let me explain my thought process.

Butane lighter. Cabin depressurizes rapidly (explosive decompression?).
Lighter now mechanically pops apart. O2 level is below what it takes
to remain conscious and the temp has suddently dropped below 30F on its
way down to -??F.

So, assuming that the butane lighter was full, can its contents now
catch fire or even explode?

Hmmmm, no, I don't think so.

But, let us assume that depressurization takes place between 10000 -
14000 MSL with a cabin pressurized to 8000 and the OAT is showing -10C

No, I don't think there is a sufficient pressure change to cause the
lighter to mechanically breakup.

I honestly don't see the danger here. What am I missing?
Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[steve.t]

Any one with a little bit of special forces training could make a nasty
weapon with a shoe string. Come to think of it, watch a few movies...
The person(s) it is used on will be rather unhappy while you saw
through their neck....

The next thing they will do is ban all writing utensiles. They make
rather potent weapons -- through the temple, into the throat, under the
5th rib...

I like that idea of everclear. Mixed in a baby food jar with a little
bit of metal sodium kept inside a pill, add just a bit of water....

The point here (hello FBI, TSA, NoSuch Agency - NSA, HSA) is that we
should take a lesson from Israel's airline and their view of security -
disqualify the passengers on the basis of threat potential. This means
searching 20% of the passengers and not driving our airlines into
bankruptcy.

Well, then, come to think of it, my wife is liking me flying us places
more. Seems she didn't like getting all felt up there at the airport...
Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[C J Campbell]

"steve.t" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Now let me get this right. I may have my physics a bit wrong here so
> let me explain my thought process.
>
> Butane lighter. Cabin depressurizes rapidly (explosive decompression?).
> Lighter now mechanically pops apart. O2 level is below what it takes
> to remain conscious and the temp has suddently dropped below 30F on its
> way down to -??F.
>
> So, assuming that the butane lighter was full, can its contents now
> catch fire or even explode?
>

You are jumping to conclusions. I said nothing about catching fire. Just
spilling butane on yourself can cause severe burns.

The other misconception is that the reason you cannot remain conscious is
because there is no oxygen. There is plenty of oxygen. It just is not at a
high enough pressure to enter your blood. There is surely enough oxygen to
keep a jet engine lit.

[Morgans]

"steve.t" > wrote

> No, I don't think there is a sufficient pressure change to cause the
> lighter to mechanically breakup.
>
> I honestly don't see the danger here. What am I missing?
> Later,
> Steve.T

Nothing. The O.P. was talking out of his as*.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"C J Campbell" > wrote

There is plenty of oxygen. It just is not at a
> high enough pressure to enter your blood. There is surely enough oxygen to
> keep a jet engine lit.
>
>
Umm. Wrong. Pressure masks are only required at the very high altitudes.
Below that, higher concentrations of oxygen are introduced at the pressure
in the cabin, to keep blood saturation levels at an acceptable level. Take,
for example, un-pressurized singles. Pressure is not needed to get the
oxygen into the blood, well up into the flight levels. If you are going to
do an Exxon altitude record, then pressure is needed to get the blood to use
it.

The jet engines take the oxygen and concentrate it at high pressure, in
order to run the combustion process at high enough levels to produce useable
thrust. Bad analogy.
--
Jim in NC

[Ash Wyllie]

So, Zippo's are OK?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Frankster]

> This TSA policy of banning 'scary' items that have any
> potential at all for use by terrorists is futile and if carried
> to its extreme, will result in only nude passengers drugged
> into unconsciousness being permitted airline travel.

Where do I go to sign up for a ticket? :) At last, maybe I'll get to sit
next to that cute blonde!

-Frank

[C J Campbell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "steve.t" > wrote
>
> > No, I don't think there is a sufficient pressure change to cause the
> > lighter to mechanically breakup.
> >
> > I honestly don't see the danger here. What am I missing?
> > Later,
> > Steve.T
>
> Nothing. The O.P. was talking out of his as*.

Let's pour a little butane fluid on yours and we will see if you change your
mind.

[Morgans]

"C J Campbell" > wrote
>
> Let's pour a little butane fluid on yours and we will see if you change
your
> mind.


No big deal at those quanities. At the pressure you are talking about, it
will not stay a liquid very long; all will flash to vapor, quickly. Anyway,
I'm not gonna worry about it, cause it ain't gonna happen. There is a
better chance of being stuck by lightning while sitting in a basement.

Reference this: "steve.t" > wrote
>
> > No, I don't think there is a sufficient pressure change to cause the
> > lighter to mechanically breakup.

Spot on.
--
Jim in NC

[G.R. Patterson III]

"steve.t" wrote:
>
> Now let me get this right. I may have my physics a bit wrong here so
> let me explain my thought process.
>
> Butane lighter. Cabin depressurizes rapidly (explosive decompression?).
> Lighter now mechanically pops apart. O2 level is below what it takes
> to remain conscious and the temp has suddently dropped below 30F on its
> way down to -??F.
>
> So, assuming that the butane lighter was full, can its contents now
> catch fire or even explode?
>
> Hmmmm, no, I don't think so.
>
> But, let us assume that depressurization takes place between 10000 -
> 14000 MSL with a cabin pressurized to 8000 and the OAT is showing -10C
>
> No, I don't think there is a sufficient pressure change to cause the
> lighter to mechanically breakup.
>
> I honestly don't see the danger here. What am I missing?
> Later,
> Steve.T
> PP ASEL/Instrument

--
George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"steve.t" wrote:
>
> Butane lighter. Cabin depressurizes rapidly (explosive decompression?).
> Lighter now mechanically pops apart.

Don't think so. Why would a drop of about 8 psi cause a lighter (which is
designed to withstand many times that differential pressure) to come apart?

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Ron McKinnon]

Frankster wrote:
>>This TSA policy of banning 'scary' items that have any
>>potential at all for use by terrorists is futile and if carried
>>to its extreme, will result in only nude passengers drugged
>>into unconsciousness being permitted airline travel.
>
>
> Where do I go to sign up for a ticket? :) At last, maybe I'll get to sit
> next to that cute blonde!
>

You may have missed the 'drugged into unconciousness' part.

[Blueskies]

"Ron McKinnon" > wrote in message news:QjBCd.691585$Pl.16960@pd7tw1no...
> Frankster wrote:
>>>This TSA policy of banning 'scary' items that have any
>>>potential at all for use by terrorists is futile and if carried
>>>to its extreme, will result in only nude passengers drugged
>>>into unconsciousness being permitted airline travel.
>>
>>
>> Where do I go to sign up for a ticket? :) At last, maybe I'll get to sit next to that cute blonde!
>>
>
> You may have missed the 'drugged into unconciousness' part.

Nice dreams, then!

[m pautz]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> land of the free
> land of the brave
> land of the save
>
> ridicolous .....
>
>
> http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/10539621.htm
>
> --- snip ---
> Posted on Fri, Dec. 31, 2004
>
> Airports to ban cigarette lighters beyond checkpoints
>
> BY BRYON OKADA
> Knight Ridder Newspapers
>
> FORT WORTH, Texas - (KRT) - In what could become a major hassle for air
> travelers who smoke, the Homeland Security Department will ban all
> cigarette lighters beyond airport checkpoints beginning Feb. 15.
>
> The Intelligence Reform Bill that President Bush signed Dec. 17 orders the
> Transportation Security Administration to review its banned-items list and
> to prohibit passengers from carrying butane lighters aboard planes.
> Legislation stipulates that the ban must be in place in 60 days.
>
> "We are reviewing the necessary changes that the Transportation Security
> Administration will need to make based on the new intelligence
> legislation," TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said.
>
> The TSA may also expand the banned-items list to include matches, aviation
> industry sources have said. No decision has been made, according to one TSA
> official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
>
> But if a ban is enacted, it isn't clear how screeners would detect matches,
> short of a time-consuming physical search.
>
> In 2003, former TSA head James Loy determined that two lighters and four
> books of matches were "an acceptable level of risk" to balance security and
> customer service. But over the next year, Loy's decision was criticized as
> too lax.
>
> After all, two U.S. senators argued last year, would-be terrorist Richard
> Reid was one match strike away from igniting explosives in the heel of his
> shoe aboard a Paris-to-Miami flight.
> [...]
> --- snap ---
>
>
I believe it is all window dressing. After the Lockerbe explosion, they
discovered that it was caused by explosives in a radio. Then they made
you turn on your radio, your computer, your cell phone; anything
electronic. It did not stop 9-11.

Then they discovered that 9-11 happened because of box cutters. So then
they took away nail clippers because they had a sharp edge. I do
believe that the re-enforced doors and the exlposive detection will stop
one kind of terrorist attack, but the terrorists will think of the next
flaw in the system and any TSA action today will not prevent the next
terrorist attack. The terrorists have all the time in the world and the
government is filled with idiots who take away nail clippers.

My favorite story is of the DEA agent who had a gun with the appropriate
paperwork. The TSA agent allowed him with his gun, but took his nail
clippers.

[Frankster]

>>>This TSA policy of banning 'scary' items that have any
>>>potential at all for use by terrorists is futile and if carried
>>>to its extreme, will result in only nude passengers drugged
>>>into unconsciousness being permitted airline travel.
>>
>>
>> Where do I go to sign up for a ticket? :) At last, maybe I'll get to
>> sit next to that cute blonde!
>>
>
> You may have missed the 'drugged into unconciousness' part.

Oh.....! BOTH of us? :)