Consequence of shifting carry-on luggage to checked luggage for aircraft weight

[Mxsmanic]

Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage?

The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the
hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers
and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in
the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high.

For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
off.

Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
than needed).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
> flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage?
>
> The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the
> hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers
> and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in
> the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high.
>
> For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
> is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
> he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
> be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
> measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
> weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
> passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
> off.
>
> Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
> characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
> than needed).
>

Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
business trip.

[Terry[_1_]]

Emily wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
>> flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage?
>>
>> The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the
>> hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers
>> and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in
>> the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high.
>>
>> For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
>> is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
>> he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
>> be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
>> measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
>> weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
>> passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
>> off.
>>
>> Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
>> characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
>> than needed).
>>
>
> Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
> take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
> shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
> business trip.

This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
what to do, or in fact what the mission is.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
>is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
>he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
>be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
>measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
>weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
>passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
>off.

Plus, with all that valuable stuff being checked, the TSA screeners will
steal about 10 pounds worth of stuff per passenger, making the weight
even further off.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
You cannot run Windows innocently. Guilt of aiding & abetting, at
the very least, is automatic.
-- David P. Murphy

[Emily[_1_]]

Terry wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I
>> can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA
>> would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to
>> check it on a business trip.
>
> This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
> person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
> the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
> This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
> what to do, or in fact what the mission is.

I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra, but figured if I
were to get caught, they'd nail me under the pilot insecurity act. So I
figured I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical after I get
an eye infection. Not sure which is preferable.

You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

Business class ticket sales will drop! Who's going to fly business class
when they can't do any business up there! (forgetting of course the people
that pay the extra just for the space and service. There are still people
who only use business class so they can continue to work whilst flying.)
Crash Lander

--
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong!
"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Does the average weight calculation for passengers on commercial
> flights include an allowance for their carry-on luggage?
>
> The reason I ask is that, if the carry-on weight is shifted to the
> hold, calculations that use an assumed average weight for passengers
> and their carry-ons in conjunction with actual weighing for luggage in
> the hold may produce estimates of take-off weight that are too high.
>
> For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
> is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
> he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
> be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
> measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
> weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
> passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
> off.
>
> Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
> characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
> than needed).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Emily[_1_]]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>> For example, if the average passenger has 10 lbs of carry-on and this
>> is incorporated into the estimated weight used for that passenger, and
>> he is suddenly required to check the carry-on, the assumed weight will
>> be too high by 10 lbs. This, combined with the 10 lbs extra of
>> measured weight in the luggage in the hold, would make the take-off
>> weight calculation 10 lbs high. Multiply that by hundreds of
>> passengers, and you have a weight that could be thousands of pounds
>> off.
>
> Plus, with all that valuable stuff being checked, the TSA screeners will
> steal about 10 pounds worth of stuff per passenger, making the weight
> even further off.
>
>
Wouldn't it even out then? Maybe that's why they're not worried about it.

[Ron Lee]

>>
>> This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
>> person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
>> the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
>> This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
>> what to do, or in fact what the mission is.
>

>
>You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
>they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

That will happen when a plot uses that method. I am not looking
forward to that day.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Emily > wrote:
>> Has anyone considered this? A too-high estimate could affect flight
>> characteristics and might also waste fuel (since more would be loaded
>> than needed).
>>
>
>Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
>take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
>shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
>business trip.

Weight and balance was not important to the commuter plane that
crashed in the southeast a few years ago either. Add the reported
control system problem and multiple people died.

Ron Lee

[BTIZ]

> Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
> take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
> shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
> business trip.

Wear your glasses. You can carry papers.. don't check company proprietary
information.
BT

[Emily[_1_]]

BTIZ wrote:
>> Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
>> take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
>> shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
>> business trip.
>
> Wear your glasses. You can carry papers.. don't check company proprietary
> information.
> BT

Are you kidding? You think I'd check contact lenses? My eyes aren't
correctable to 20/20 with glasses and I can't risk getting to the other
end and not having contacts. Can't drive to the airport in glasses, either.

And if you think I'm paranoid, the airlines/TSA have a 100% lose/steal
rate with my checked luggage. I've learned.

[Jose[_1_]]

> don't check company proprietary
> information.

So, what to do with my palm?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> don't check company proprietary information.
>
> So, what to do with my palm?
>
> Jose
I've been getting all sorts of answers like, "oh, just do this" since
this whole thing came up. Problem is, you can't "just do that" like
people think. It's narrow-minded thinking at its best.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:39:16 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
> they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

The TSA is already ****ing us... And you call it a "rectal exam"...
You're kinky, Emily...

[Mxsmanic]

Richard Riley writes:

> The Federal Aviation Administration change was reportedly proposed in
> 2004 after the crash of a passenger carrying aircraft in North
> Carolina in 2003 that was due in part to the aircraft's uneven weight
> distribution. The increase in weights take into account the fact that
> recent research has revealed that passengers' body weights have
> increased and clothing is generally heavier in winter months."

All well and good, but that doesn't resolve the problem I've raised,
although what you quote appears to confirm that the average estimated
passenger weight _does_ include some presumed weight of carry-on
luggage.

The problem here is that the presumed weight for carry-on luggage
right now is some non-zero number x, when in fact the real carry-on
luggage weight is zero. So the calculations are overestimating
aircraft weight by x*y, where y is the number of passengers. This can
amount to thousands of pounds.

I've e-mailed a question about this to the FAA but I have not yet
received a reply.

> Years ago I was told a story by a 727 pilot, about a charter flight
> where they aborted the takeoff because they weren't getting the
> accelleration they were expecting. Turned out the flight was a
> charter by coin collectors, they all had 50-100 lbs of rare, expensive
> coins in their carry on stuff.

I think people should just be weighed with their carry-ons, and forget
the political correctness. I'm sure a weighing platform could be
installed at security checkpoints so that weight could be checked.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article <gJSDg.16807$RD.14923@fed1read08>, "BTIZ" >
wrote:

> > Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I can't
> > take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA would be
> > shuffling through company secret information if I were to check it on a
> > business trip.
>
> Wear your glasses. You can carry papers.. don't check company proprietary
> information.
> BT

That is completely impractical, and demonstrates absolutely no understanding
of why people travel, what people's medical needs are, the lack of security in
protecting checked luggage, and the uselessness of fighting yesterday's tactics.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote

> The problem here is that the presumed weight for carry-on luggage
> right now is some non-zero number x, when in fact the real carry-on
> luggage weight is zero. So the calculations are overestimating
> aircraft weight by x*y, where y is the number of passengers. This can
> amount to thousands of pounds.

However...the same regulation that permits the "average passenger
weight", also permits an "average bag weight" in the baggage holds.
The airlines that I flew for averaged every thing. No Problem.

Bob Moore

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Jose wrote:
>>> don't check company proprietary information.
>>
>> So, what to do with my palm?
>>
>> Jose
> I've been getting all sorts of answers like, "oh, just do this" since this
> whole thing came up. Problem is, you can't "just do that" like people
> think. It's narrow-minded thinking at its best.

Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz of some liquids.

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Moore writes:

> However...the same regulation that permits the "average passenger
> weight", also permits an "average bag weight" in the baggage holds.
> The airlines that I flew for averaged every thing. No Problem.

How far off can aircraft weight be, percentage-wise, before it makes a
potentially hazardous difference in flight characteristics?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter R.]

Ron Lee > wrote:

>>
>>You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
>>they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.
>
> That will happen when a plot uses that method. I am not looking
> forward to that day.

Think of the fun one could have with free rectal exams, however. Makes me
appreciate the fact that I never aspired to be a TSA security agent.

--
Peter

[Jose[_1_]]

> Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz of some liquids.

I'm so grateful to the authorities.

The next terror device will be blue. They won't let you carry blue items.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bob Moore]

Mxsmanic wrote
> How far off can aircraft weight be, percentage-wise, before it makes a
> potentially hazardous difference in flight characteristics?

1%-2% would not even be noticed except in total fuel burn on a long
flight. 5% would be noticed by the pilot, but only takeoff distance,
climb rate, and maximum altitude attainable. 10% would certainly
cause performance problems. However, most flights are not weight
limited by the maximum certificated T.O. weight, but by some other
performance limit...RW length, obstacles, landing weight, etc.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:35:00 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:
> I've e-mailed a question about this to the FAA but I have not yet
> received a reply.

Don't hold your breath... I've tried for over a year to get them and
the TSA to differentiate between a 'gun' and 'gun parts' and no one
wants to put their name on the line by making a decision... Since they
won't specify which collection of parts of a firearm constitute a
complete 'gun', any collection of gun parts would have to be declared
as a gun in your baggage... Which means that a single screw that holds
the grips on a handgun must be declared and and more importantly, the
bag containing it must be locked...

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:39:21 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:

> Business class ticket sales will drop!

Hopefully, all ticket sales will drop. I understand that commercial air
travel is a requirement for some, and I'm sorry for those people. But why
should the rest of the flying population suffer such indignities?

Teleconferencing firms should win big out of this. And, hopefully, this
will save businesses money that can be passed on to consumers.

As consumers we save money, leaving more to spend on our own flying.
The airlines use less fuel, reducing fuel costs. The airlines use less
airspace, leaving more for us.

I like this plan.

- Andrew

[Emily[_1_]]

Jose wrote:
>> Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz of some liquids.
>
> I'm so grateful to the authorities.
>
> The next terror device will be blue. They won't let you carry blue items.
>
> Jose
LMFAO.

I just spit coffee all over my screen. Now, in addition to replacing
the medicine the TSA stole from me last week, I might need a new laptop.

[Emily[_1_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jose wrote:
>>>> don't check company proprietary information.
>>> So, what to do with my palm?
>>>
>>> Jose
>> I've been getting all sorts of answers like, "oh, just do this" since this
>> whole thing came up. Problem is, you can't "just do that" like people
>> think. It's narrow-minded thinking at its best.
>
> Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz of some liquids.
>
>
That does a lot of good now that they've already stolen my medication,
doesn't it?

And 4 oz of water isn't going to get you very far. I simply don't
understand why you can't bring drinks bought in the sterile area. Why
don't they just admit their security sucks?

[Jose[_1_]]

>> The next terror device will be blue. They won't let you carry blue items.
> LMFAO.

Sadly, I am serious. After Columbine, a number of school districts
banned trenchcoats.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skylune[_1_]]

Talk about seeing the silver lining....

If there is a dramatic reduction in commercial ticket sales, the Av. Trust
fund revenues will wither (similar to the post- 9/11 situation), since
commerical ticket taxes comprise the overwhelming bulk of trust fund
revenues.

In that case, the already considerable political pressure to impose user
fees will probably be unstoppable. And GA airports receiving annual
operating and capital subsidies will have to finance projects on their own
and will have to generate revenues sufficient to cover expenses without
federal handouts (as it should be, obviously).

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:35:00 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>> I've e-mailed a question about this to the FAA but I have not yet
>> received a reply.
>
> Don't hold your breath... I've tried for over a year to get them and
> the TSA to differentiate between a 'gun' and 'gun parts' and no one
> wants to put their name on the line by making a decision... Since they
> won't specify which collection of parts of a firearm constitute a
> complete 'gun', any collection of gun parts would have to be declared
> as a gun in your baggage... Which means that a single screw that holds
> the grips on a handgun must be declared and and more importantly, the
> bag containing it must be locked...

I think you'd be safe if you used the same definition as the federal
government which would be the part that has the serial number on it. As an
example a 1911 pistol the frame is the gun and is what is regulated. In the
case of an AR-15 it would be the lower receiver.

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> All well and good, but that doesn't resolve the problem I've raised,...
>
> The problem here is that the presumed weight for carry-on luggage
> right now is some non-zero number x, when in fact the real carry-on
> luggage weight is zero.

I think you may be overthinking this. I would think the general presumption
to be that the bulk of former carry-on luggage is now being checked, so the
total weight remains about the same, just shifted to a cargo hold.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:38:15 -0500, Emily wrote:

> I might need a new laptop.

Just pretend that the TSA stole it too.

- Andrew

[Jim Macklin]

New security rules...
reupholster all seats with pig skin.
all passengers nude, or a French loin cloth
all passengers checked for implants
all passengers given a high colonic before the flight
all meals required to contain PORK, cheap hotdogs, pork
chops in first class.
security check points with animal sniffing, pigs.
Pig with cameras wandering all areas of the airports.

Check-in 12 hours before flight, all passengers in
quarantine until take-off.


"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
| > "Emily" > wrote in message
| > ...
| >> Jose wrote:
| >>>> don't check company proprietary information.
| >>> So, what to do with my palm?
| >>>
| >>> Jose
| >> I've been getting all sorts of answers like, "oh, just
do this" since this
| >> whole thing came up. Problem is, you can't "just do
that" like people
| >> think. It's narrow-minded thinking at its best.
| >
| > Well they are now going to let you carry less than 4 oz
of some liquids.
| >
| >
| That does a lot of good now that they've already stolen my
medication,
| doesn't it?
|
| And 4 oz of water isn't going to get you very far. I
simply don't
| understand why you can't bring drinks bought in the
sterile area. Why
| don't they just admit their security sucks?
|

[Jose[_1_]]

> all meals required to contain PORK

I thought TSA =was= primarily pork.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:39:21 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:
>
>> Business class ticket sales will drop!
>
> Hopefully, all ticket sales will drop.

I hope not. As an employee of a MAJOR company that supports the
airlines, I kind of need my job.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> New security rules...
> reupholster all seats with pig skin.
> all passengers nude, or a French loin cloth
> all passengers checked for implants
> all passengers given a high colonic before the flight
> all meals required to contain PORK, cheap hotdogs, pork
> chops in first class.
> security check points with animal sniffing, pigs.
> Pig with cameras wandering all areas of the airports.
>
> Check-in 12 hours before flight, all passengers in
> quarantine until take-off.

Don't give them any ideas.

[Emily[_1_]]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:38:15 -0500, Emily wrote:
>
>> I might need a new laptop.
>
> Just pretend that the TSA stole it too.
>
> - Andrew
>
I'm not pretending the TSA stole anything. The actually did.

[Jim Macklin]

Are those fun bags saline or liquid explosive?

Did that fellow have plastic explosive surgery?

Instead of drugs, did they swallow explosives?

Ideas like these?



"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > New security rules...
| > reupholster all seats with pig skin.
| > all passengers nude, or a French loin cloth
| > all passengers checked for implants
| > all passengers given a high colonic before the flight
| > all meals required to contain PORK, cheap hotdogs, pork
| > chops in first class.
| > security check points with animal sniffing, pigs.
| > Pig with cameras wandering all areas of the airports.
| >
| > Check-in 12 hours before flight, all passengers in
| > quarantine until take-off.
|
| Don't give them any ideas.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Are those fun bags saline or liquid explosive?
>
> Did that fellow have plastic explosive surgery?
>
> Instead of drugs, did they swallow explosives?
>
> Ideas like these?

I think I've told this story here before, but I heard Ollie North tell a
great story an incident at Raleigh just after the shoe bomber incident.
Basically, when the TSA told him to take off his shoes and he asked
why, the TSA officer said, "Well, sir, I don't know if you heard about
this, but someone tried to blow up a plane with his shoe." North looked
at him and said, "So what happens when someone tries to blow up a plane
with his underwear." Next thing he knew, he was up against the wall
waiting for the cops to show up to deal with the guy with the bomb in
his underwear.

The TSA officer has no idea who he was, but the cops did when they
showed up. He said even after the cops called him Colonel North and
explained to the TSA officer who he was, he still didn't know. I'm
really not sure what that says about the TSA.

My brother's idea is just to make everyone fly naked.

[Jim Macklin]

It has been a staple of sci-fi for at least 50 years, the
explosive alien. It has been done on every Star Trek
version, and other shows too.

As for Richard Reed, the shoe bomber with matches and fuses.
The terrorists use electronics, batteries and very
sophisticated remote detonators by using cellphones,
disposable cameras, etc.
Richard Reed was probably sitting in his seat, elbowing the
guy next to him to get him to see the matches. The whole
purpose of that was to get us to take our shoes off and slow
down the lines.

In Israel, the bombers attack the lines before they get to a
security point.

The idea of flying nude raises some questions about safety,
clothes protect the body from fire and injury in a crash.
In a wilderness, clothes keep you alive. But as long as the
women are attractive, I have no objection to having to be
naked to fly. Of course, the really ugly, fat men and women
will have to be sedated and hidden.
They will have to screen for child molesters in addition to
terrorists. But we do have laws that require them to
register after a first conviction. To bad we can't get the
terrorists to register, it would make the security job
easier.

All this should increase sales of VLJ and regular business
airplanes. I'm sure Skylune must be rooting for the
terrorists as long as the noise and wreckage don't fall near
his home.



"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Are those fun bags saline or liquid explosive?
| >
| > Did that fellow have plastic explosive surgery?
| >
| > Instead of drugs, did they swallow explosives?
| >
| > Ideas like these?
|
| I think I've told this story here before, but I heard
Ollie North tell a
| great story an incident at Raleigh just after the shoe
bomber incident.
| Basically, when the TSA told him to take off his shoes
and he asked
| why, the TSA officer said, "Well, sir, I don't know if
you heard about
| this, but someone tried to blow up a plane with his shoe."
North looked
| at him and said, "So what happens when someone tries to
blow up a plane
| with his underwear." Next thing he knew, he was up
against the wall
| waiting for the cops to show up to deal with the guy with
the bomb in
| his underwear.
|
| The TSA officer has no idea who he was, but the cops did
when they
| showed up. He said even after the cops called him Colonel
North and
| explained to the TSA officer who he was, he still didn't
know. I'm
| really not sure what that says about the TSA.
|
| My brother's idea is just to make everyone fly naked.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
><snip>
>
> In Israel, the bombers attack the lines before they get to a
> security point.

That's what I thought as I stood in line last week waiting to get
through security.
>
> The idea of flying nude raises some questions about safety,
> clothes protect the body from fire and injury in a crash.
> In a wilderness, clothes keep you alive.

You know the TSA suggests wearing sandals on planes because it expedites
screening? That's one of more irresponsible things they've said.

> All this should increase sales of VLJ and regular business
> airplanes.

Yes, well, I see my company going out of business before this is over.
We only support large aircraft.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:39:21 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:
>>
>>> Business class ticket sales will drop!
>>
>> Hopefully, all ticket sales will drop.
>
> I hope not. As an employee of a MAJOR company that supports the airlines,
> I kind of need my job.

That's the downside. The company puts off huge amounts of loyal workers to
maintain profit levels. The companies don't lose out, only the staff do.
Crash Lander

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:22:57 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> I think you'd be safe if you used the same definition as the federal
> government which would be the part that has the serial number on it. As an
> example a 1911 pistol the frame is the gun and is what is regulated. In the
> case of an AR-15 it would be the lower receiver.

I've proposed that, but they won't commit to it... They recognize that
the intent of the ruling is to not let someone be able to gain access
to an unlocked bag with a fully operational weapon in it, but that's
about it... No one is willing to put their name on the line and say
that a firearm consists of a particular set of parts... Since no one
will commit, I can thus lock my bags by putting a single grip screw
into each bag and declare that it contains a 'firearm'...

[Jose[_1_]]

> Since no one
> will commit, I can thus lock my bags by putting a single grip screw
> into each bag and declare that it contains a 'firearm'...

I suppose you could use the idea of critical parts. Although any part
is "critical" if it is missing, there are some parts, the =kind= of
which, if missing, would preclude an operational weapon.

Those would be "critical parts"

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:41:49 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> I suppose you could use the idea of critical parts. Although any part
> is "critical" if it is missing, there are some parts, the =kind= of
> which, if missing, would preclude an operational weapon.
>
> Those would be "critical parts"

My original intent was to be able to separate a firearm into multiple
parts and to split the parts among multiple pieces of luggage so that
I would not need to declare the weapon... The unintended side effect
of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage by putting a
single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a firearm...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:41:49 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>> I suppose you could use the idea of critical parts. Although any part
>> is "critical" if it is missing, there are some parts, the =kind= of
>> which, if missing, would preclude an operational weapon.
>>
>> Those would be "critical parts"
>
> My original intent was to be able to separate a firearm into multiple
> parts and to split the parts among multiple pieces of luggage so that
> I would not need to declare the weapon... The unintended side effect
> of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage by putting a
> single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a firearm...

When you say "locked", do you mean locked so that the TSA can't get in?
Or do you still have to use the universal lock?

[Jose[_1_]]

> The unintended side effect
> of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage by putting a
> single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a firearm.

Does this prevent the TSA from opening it?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jim Macklin]

Yes, you are required to be the only person with a key. You
must declare the firearm at check-in, state that it is
unloaded and you have the only key for the bag or case.
They give you a ticket to put inside the bag as proof you
did declared the firearm.

You can carry a small quantity of ammunition, 10 pounds in
most cases, packed in secure manner, that includes factory
boxes. Each airline has "company rules" but the FAA allows
the carriage of legal firearms and the BATF rules allow
transport as long as your destination is a place where the
firearm is legal for you to possess. If your flight goes
through NYC or Boston, your destination had better be New
Hampshire or Vermont.


"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
|> The unintended side effect
| > of my quest has been the ability to lock all my luggage
by putting a
| > single screw in each piece of luggage and declaring it a
firearm.
|
| Does this prevent the TSA from opening it?
|
| Jose
| --
| The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the
music.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Yes, you are required to be the only person with a key. You
> must declare the firearm at check-in, state that it is
> unloaded and you have the only key for the bag or case.
> They give you a ticket to put inside the bag as proof you
> did declared the firearm.
>
> You can carry a small quantity of ammunition, 10 pounds in
> most cases, packed in secure manner, that includes factory
> boxes. Each airline has "company rules" but the FAA allows
> the carriage of legal firearms and the BATF rules allow
> transport as long as your destination is a place where the
> firearm is legal for you to possess. If your flight goes
> through NYC or Boston, your destination had better be New
> Hampshire or Vermont.

Too bad a lot of my commercial flights are into ORD. I thought you'd
found a way for the TSA to stop stealing my suff.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> I just spit coffee all over my screen. Now, in addition to replacing
> the medicine the TSA stole from me last week, I might need a new laptop.

Make sure it's not blue.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

John Gaquin writes:

> I think you may be overthinking this. I would think the general presumption
> to be that the bulk of former carry-on luggage is now being checked, so the
> total weight remains about the same, just shifted to a cargo hold.

The total weight _does_ remain the same, but the estimated weight goes
up, because the estimate for passengers includes carry-on items that
they are no longer carrying. Assuming that the checked luggage is
actually weighed, whereas the weight of passengers and carry-ons is
only estimated, the result is an aircraft that is considerably lighter
than the weight estimate implies.

I presume that a slightly light plane is less of a hazard than an
unexpectedly overweight plane, so maybe it doesn't matter that much.
And if checked luggage weight is estimated, too, it may be a wash.
But it's an example of the kinds of things that change when you
suddenly declare new "security" rules without thinking things through.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Macklin]

Indiana has decent gun laws, just get a hotel brochure.


"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Yes, you are required to be the only person with a key.
You
| > must declare the firearm at check-in, state that it is
| > unloaded and you have the only key for the bag or case.
| > They give you a ticket to put inside the bag as proof
you
| > did declared the firearm.
| >
| > You can carry a small quantity of ammunition, 10 pounds
in
| > most cases, packed in secure manner, that includes
factory
| > boxes. Each airline has "company rules" but the FAA
allows
| > the carriage of legal firearms and the BATF rules allow
| > transport as long as your destination is a place where
the
| > firearm is legal for you to possess. If your flight
goes
| > through NYC or Boston, your destination had better be
New
| > Hampshire or Vermont.
|
| Too bad a lot of my commercial flights are into ORD. I
thought you'd
| found a way for the TSA to stop stealing my suff.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:44:02 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> When you say "locked", do you mean locked so that the TSA can't get in?
> Or do you still have to use the universal lock?

Nope, completely locked... If they want to open it, they have to find
you and get you to unlock it... If they can't find you, your bag might
not make it on the flight though... Personally, I stand by the x-ray
machine and wait for them to allow it to go through... If they have a
problem with it, I'm there to unlock it...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:31:28 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> Too bad a lot of my commercial flights are into ORD. I thought you'd
> found a way for the TSA to stop stealing my suff.

So they're into ORD, what's the big deal? You put a set of grips or
grip screws into your luggage, declare it as a firearm, and go
wherever you want... Even if it is some ****ed up location where they
have anti-2nd-Amendment laws, you're cool since the local laws are
very explicit about what is a firearm and a pair of grips or grip
screws are not classified by such by any locality by any stretch of
their imagination... Only the TSA is so ****ed up that they can't
decide what minimally constitutes a firearm...

The thing is, what *really* constitutes a firearm? A receiver is
often useless without a barrel... A barrel is no more than a fancy
piece of pipe... What about a bang stick? With it, you have little
more than a very short barrel and a fixed firing pin on a cap... For a
revolver, the frame doesn't do much good without the cylinder... And
if all you had was a cylinder, you would be hard pressed to utilize it
as a firearm... Well, you probably *could*, but a short piece of pipe
would probably work better...

When I'm carrying in my luggage, I put my firearm in a locked plastic
case and then I also lock the luggage that the plastic case is put
into...

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:54:38 GMT, Grumman-581 wrote:

>> You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
>> they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.
>
>The TSA is already ****ing us... And you call it a "rectal exam"...
>You're kinky, Emily...

it is good to be kinky :-()

AFAIK you are only reimbursed a certain amount of money per kilo of luggage
when lost. So now you are forced to check in your laptop (be sure to
encrypt your harddrive [1]). You only get this per kilo price when the
laptop got lost.

Other point: there has to be the name on the prescription or on the meds -
matching your name on the ticket. Well, it is uncommon in central Europe
that you keep your prescription (it goes to the insurance for
reimbursment), and nobody writes the name on the medicament (hell,
everybody can write his name on his medicaments).

travel by train might become more interesting here in central Europe.
distances are relative short, total time is similar, train has more
comfort.

#m

[1] if you use public means of communication then all your data is well
known by the US and British intelligence, so there is no real need for
encryption ...
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:35:16 GMT, Jose wrote:

>The next terror device will be blue. They won't let you carry blue items.

nah! I vote for red.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Martin Hotze[_1_]]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:26:47 -0500, Emily wrote:

>My brother's idea is just to make everyone fly naked.

http://www.naked-air.com/

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:31:28 -0500, Emily >
> wrote:
>> Too bad a lot of my commercial flights are into ORD. I thought you'd
>> found a way for the TSA to stop stealing my suff.
>
> So they're into ORD, what's the big deal?

Can't carry a firearm in the City of Chicago.

[Emily[_1_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:54:38 GMT, Grumman-581 wrote:
>
>>> You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
>>> they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.
>> The TSA is already ****ing us... And you call it a "rectal exam"...
>> You're kinky, Emily...
>
> it is good to be kinky :-()
>
> AFAIK you are only reimbursed a certain amount of money per kilo of luggage
> when lost.

In the US, it's a flat rate of $2800. That doesn't cover my laptop AND
clothes, etc. Internationally, it's per weight, which still doesn't
cover it.

> Other point: there has to be the name on the prescription or on the meds -
> matching your name on the ticket. Well, it is uncommon in central Europe
> that you keep your prescription (it goes to the insurance for
> reimbursment)

Here, too. The pharmacy keeps the prescription. I wonder if anyone
even thinks of this stuff.

[Jim Macklin]

How do you "stand by" the X-ray machine with check baggage?
If you claim it has a firearm locked inside it must be
checked baggage.



"Grumman-581" > wrote
in message
...
| On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:44:02 -0500, Emily
>
| wrote:
| > When you say "locked", do you mean locked so that the
TSA can't get in?
| > Or do you still have to use the universal lock?
|
| Nope, completely locked... If they want to open it, they
have to find
| you and get you to unlock it... If they can't find you,
your bag might
| not make it on the flight though... Personally, I stand by
the x-ray
| machine and wait for them to allow it to go through... If
they have a
| problem with it, I'm there to unlock it...

[Jim Macklin]

Honest citizens can't carry a firearm in Chicago. The gang
bangers have no problem. Illinois is totally screwed up,
not just the gun laws either.


"Emily" > wrote in message
...
| Grumman-581 wrote:
| > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:31:28 -0500, Emily
>
| > wrote:
| >> Too bad a lot of my commercial flights are into ORD. I
thought you'd
| >> found a way for the TSA to stop stealing my suff.
| >
| > So they're into ORD, what's the big deal?
|
| Can't carry a firearm in the City of Chicago.

[Jim Macklin]

Looks like a nudist travel club, happy smiling faces. Not
our security idea at all.



"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
| On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:26:47 -0500, Emily wrote:
|
| >My brother's idea is just to make everyone fly naked.
|
| http://www.naked-air.com/
|
| #m
| --
| Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns?
If you now consider
| that a signature usually consists of up to four lines,
this gives you enough
| space to spread a tremendous amount of information with
your messages. So seize
| this opportunity and don't waste your signature with
bull**** nobody will read.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> (...flying naked...)> They will have to screen for child molesters in
> addition to
> terrorists. But we do have laws that require them to
> register after a first conviction. To bad we can't get the
> terrorists to register, it would make the security job
> easier.

It would certainly help, if suicide bombers would be required to register
after a first conviction.....or what's left of them.

:-))

regards,
Friedrich

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:06:32 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> How do you "stand by" the X-ray machine with check baggage?
> If you claim it has a firearm locked inside it must be
> checked baggage.

Maybe it depends upon what airport you're flying through, but the ones
that I fly through have the TSA x-ray and sniffer machines either
right near the ticket counter or at least very close... This is
different than the machines that you go through for your carry-on
luggage...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 07:20:36 -0500, Emily >
wrote:
> Can't carry a firearm in the City of Chicago.

Regardless of the fact of why someone would want to go to such a
place, it still doesn't matter... What you would be declaring as a
'firearm' would not be considered a firearm by even the most fervent
anti-2nd-Amendment socialist wacko... It's only because the TSA has
refused to define 'firearm' that you can thus claim that you must
declare these parts as a 'firearm' because they won't specify where
'gun parts' actually become a 'firearm'... If they'll clarify it so
that if the parts do not consitute a working firearm, I'll happily
quit locking my suitcase, but until then, I will take advantage of
this loophole...

[Jim Macklin]

Advance registration should be required. A law such as that
would allow the liberals to declare the problem solved and
we could bury our heads in the sand again.



"Friedrich Ostertag" >
wrote in message ...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > (...flying naked...)> They will have to screen for child
molesters in
| > addition to
| > terrorists. But we do have laws that require them to
| > register after a first conviction. To bad we can't get
the
| > terrorists to register, it would make the security job
| > easier.
|
| It would certainly help, if suicide bombers would be
required to register
| after a first conviction.....or what's left of them.
|
| :-))
|
| regards,
| Friedrich
|
|

[Friedrich Ostertag]

such as is already required when entering the US of A? IIRC, the
customs-card you have to fill out on the plane before landing contains a
question, which in essence comes down to "are you or have you been involved
in terrorist activities? - [ ] yes [ ] no" (I don't remember the exact
wording). Now that's a big relief, isn't it, if those with "yes" ticked are
refused entry at customs, there is only the terrorists already living in the
US of A left that need to be dealt with. Maybe if every resident is also
required to answer that question we can just jail those that ticked "yes"
and indeed declare the problem solved :-)

regards,
Friedrich


Jim Macklin wrote:
> Advance registration should be required. A law such as that
> would allow the liberals to declare the problem solved and
> we could bury our heads in the sand again.
>
>
>
> "Friedrich Ostertag" >
> wrote in message ...
>> Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>> (...flying naked...)> They will have to screen for child molesters
>>> in addition to
>>> terrorists. But we do have laws that require them to
>>> register after a first conviction. To bad we can't get the
>>> terrorists to register, it would make the security job
>>> easier.
>>
>> It would certainly help, if suicide bombers would be required to
>> register after a first conviction.....or what's left of them.
>>
>> :-))
>>
>> regards,
>> Friedrich

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Honest citizens can't carry a firearm in Chicago. The gang
> bangers have no problem. Illinois is totally screwed up,
> not just the gun laws either.

Does Chicago have any honest citizens left?

Matt

[RST Engineering]

Used to have just one, but I married her and took her to California.

Jim
>
> Does Chicago have any honest citizens left?
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:

> Used to have just one, but I married her and took her to California.
>
> Jim
>
>>Does Chicago have any honest citizens left?
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>

Glad to hear that you rescued her!

Matt

[.Blueskies.]

It was a charter flight, not scheduled 121 carrier, so of course they are having fun!


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message news:PJjEg.3583$SZ3.2697@dukeread04...
: Looks like a nudist travel club, happy smiling faces. Not
: our security idea at all.
:
:
:
: "Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
: ...
: | On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:26:47 -0500, Emily wrote:
: |
: | >My brother's idea is just to make everyone fly naked.
: |
: | http://www.naked-air.com/
: |
: | #m
: | --
: | Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns?
: If you now consider
: | that a signature usually consists of up to four lines,
: this gives you enough
: | space to spread a tremendous amount of information with
: your messages. So seize
: | this opportunity and don't waste your signature with
: bull**** nobody will read.
:
:

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:06:32 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>> How do you "stand by" the X-ray machine with check baggage?
>> If you claim it has a firearm locked inside it must be
>> checked baggage.
>
> Maybe it depends upon what airport you're flying through, but the ones
> that I fly through have the TSA x-ray and sniffer machines either
> right near the ticket counter or at least very close... This is
> different than the machines that you go through for your carry-on
> luggage...
Yeah, like I've got freaking time to do that.

[Jim Macklin]

Good question.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Honest citizens can't carry a firearm in Chicago. The
gang
| > bangers have no problem. Illinois is totally screwed
up,
| > not just the gun laws either.
|
| Does Chicago have any honest citizens left?
|
| Matt

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> All well and good, but that doesn't resolve the problem I've raised,
> although what you quote appears to confirm that the average estimated
> passenger weight _does_ include some presumed weight of carry-on
> luggage.

Carry-ons are NOT counted individually. An historical average is calculated
to determine the number of carry-ons per person, and then that average is
all that is used from that point on. It doesn't matter if all or non of the
passengers has a carry-on. Also, if the carry-on is stowed in the overhead
compartment or in the baggage hold, the total weight is the same.

The consequence of shifting carry-ons is inconsequential.

D.

[Morgans[_3_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote
>
> Years ago I was told a story by a 727 pilot, about a charter flight
> where they aborted the takeoff because they weren't getting the
> accelleration they were expecting. Turned out the flight was a
> charter by coin collectors, they all had 50-100 lbs of rare, expensive
> coins in their carry on stuff.

I have always wondered if the pilots of the 747 that the Ohio State
University Marching Band had chartered to fly to California , had the
correct weight of all of the extra weight of the all brass instruments in
the band. I have a feeling that they did, from the spool up before the
brakes released!
--
Jim in NC

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> But it's an example of the kinds of things that change when you
> suddenly declare new "security" rules without thinking things through.

How do you know that things were not thought through? Do you assume this
because you were not invited to the meetings? (and please, forego the "they
didn't think through xxx" argument, as it is irrelevant to your present
question) Perhaps they were thought through in great detail -- by
professionals -- and they reached the same conclusion many of us have - that
it really doesn't make much difference at all.

[Mxsmanic]

John Gaquin writes:

> How do you know that things were not thought through?

Because I came up with this easily, and others have come up with other
things.

> Do you assume this because you were not invited to the meetings?

No, I base this on the generally manifest incompetence of the agencies
involved, and on the clear inadequacy and inappropriateness of the
procedures they have in place.

> Perhaps they were thought through in great detail -- by
> professionals -- and they reached the same conclusion many of us have - that
> it really doesn't make much difference at all.

Perhaps. But I wouldn't be money on it.

Did you see that the UK just let a 12-year-old onto a plane without a
ticket or boarding pass and nobody even noticed it until he was
sipping a drink?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> No, I base this on the generally manifest incompetence of the agencies
> involved, and on the clear inadequacy and inappropriateness of the
> procedures they have in place.

Estimated weight and balance procedures came about over many years with
significant imput from the ones who have the most to lose- the crewmembers.
The referenced Charlotte BE19 crash was the result of an improperly set
elevator limit.

> Perhaps. But I wouldn't be money on it.

You lose.

D.

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
>> How do you know that things were not thought through?
>
> Because I came up with this easily, and others have come up with other
> things.
>
>> Do you assume this because you were not invited to the meetings?
>
> No, I base this on the generally manifest incompetence of the agencies
> involved, and on the clear inadequacy and inappropriateness of the
> procedures they have in place.

This may come as a substantial shock to you, but there are folks in many
walks of life, including government, who are just as bright as you. Railing
against bureaucracy is fun, particularly when you are not the one who has to
be responsible, but way, way too easy to be anything but a low-grade
diversion.

[Mxsmanic]

John Gaquin writes:

> This may come as a substantial shock to you, but there are folks in many
> walks of life, including government, who are just as bright as you.

Unfortunately, they are not always the people who are put in charge.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Terry[_1_]]

Emily wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Are those fun bags saline or liquid explosive?
>>
>> Did that fellow have plastic explosive surgery?
>>
>> Instead of drugs, did they swallow explosives?
>>
>> Ideas like these?
>
> I think I've told this story here before, but I heard Ollie North tell a
> great story an incident at Raleigh just after the shoe bomber incident.
> Basically, when the TSA told him to take off his shoes and he asked
> why, the TSA officer said, "Well, sir, I don't know if you heard about
> this, but someone tried to blow up a plane with his shoe." North looked
> at him and said, "So what happens when someone tries to blow up a plane
> with his underwear." Next thing he knew, he was up against the wall
> waiting for the cops to show up to deal with the guy with the bomb in
> his underwear.
>
> The TSA officer has no idea who he was, but the cops did when they
> showed up. He said even after the cops called him Colonel North and
> explained to the TSA officer who he was, he still didn't know. I'm
> really not sure what that says about the TSA.
>
> My brother's idea is just to make everyone fly naked.

Well, at 61 years of age, I guarantee that you (and for that matter, no
one else) wants to see ME fly naked!

Now, if all the ladies fly naked too, that might be an idea worth exploring.

[Terry[_1_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Advance registration should be required. A law such as that
> would allow the liberals to declare the problem solved and
> we could bury our heads in the sand again.

Seems to me that your wacko nitwit right-wing-nuts seem to drop from the
conservative nimrod tree, and not from the "everything goes liberal
tree." (As in Timothy McVeigh, American Marine and staunch Republican.)

That being the case, everyone should like the pre-registration notion.

[Terry[_1_]]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:26:47 -0500, Emily wrote:
>
>> My brother's idea is just to make everyone fly naked.
>
> http://www.naked-air.com/
>
> #m

That was nasty. I mean, what if someone sits in your seat, with their
butt maybe leaking, and they you sit back in it later?

[Terry[_1_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Honest citizens can't carry a firearm in Chicago. The gang bangers
>> have no problem. Illinois is totally screwed up, not just the gun
>> laws either.
>
> Does Chicago have any honest citizens left?
>
> Matt

Mayor Daley?

(That was a joke.)

[Jose[_1_]]

> I mean, what if someone sits in your seat, with their butt maybe leaking, and they you sit back in it later?

I think you're supposed to sit on a towel.

Back on topic, I had a flight on American Airlines (ok, almost on topic)
where sometime around takeoff, I began to notice that my butt was
getting wet. The seat was wet (I'd rather not think of how) and it took
a little time for it to soak through all the layers of cloth. Since we
were taking off, I couldn't change seats for a while.

Another reason to own a plane.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Terry wrote:


>
>
> Well, at 61 years of age, I guarantee that you (and for that matter, no
> one else) wants to see ME fly naked!
>
> Now, if all the ladies fly naked too, that might be an idea worth
> exploring.




The women your age are just as ugly as you.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> John Gaquin writes:
>
>> This may come as a substantial shock to you, but there are folks in
>> many walks of life, including government, who are just as bright as
>> you.
>
> Unfortunately, they are not always the people who are put in charge.

Who did put them in charge?

The great thing about democracy is, that every people gets the government it
deserves.... So if your government really is so full of idiots as you
complain, someone somewhere did vote for the wrong guy.

regards,
Friedrich

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:24:27 GMT, Jose >
wrote:
> Back on topic, I had a flight on American Airlines (ok, almost on topic)
> where sometime around takeoff, I began to notice that my butt was
> getting wet. The seat was wet (I'd rather not think of how) and it took
> a little time for it to soak through all the layers of cloth. Since we
> were taking off, I couldn't change seats for a while.

Sorry about that... You see, we were on approach and I had just
finished a 6-pack of beer... and ... well ... you get the picture ...

[Capt.Doug]

>"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
> Unfortunately, they are not always the people who are put in charge.

Who is in charge?
The PIC is the final authority for any flight. If he doesn't like the weight
and balance, he doesn't fly. Are you going to call airline pilots
incompetent now?

D.

[Mxsmanic]

Friedrich Ostertag writes:

> The great thing about democracy is, that every people gets the government it
> deserves ...

That is also its biggest disadvantage.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Capt.Doug writes:

> Who is in charge?
> The PIC is the final authority for any flight. If he doesn't like the weight
> and balance, he doesn't fly. Are you going to call airline pilots
> incompetent now?

I'm not in the mood to deal with testosterone today.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Gaquin]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> I'm not in the mood to deal with testosterone today.


LOL grade-school exit line!

[Meghan Taylor]

Emily wrote:

> Terry wrote:
> > Emily wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't care about weight and balance. I care that I
> >> can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight and that the TSA
> >> would be shuffling through company secret information if I were to
> >> check it on a business trip.
> >
> > This is a good point. The TSA apparently doesn't understand that a
> > person/terrorist can smuggle fluids taped to one's leg, or other part of
> > the body, or even shove a vial/tube up their butt.
> > This type of over-reaction is typical of an agency that has no idea of
> > what to do, or in fact what the mission is.
>
> I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra, but figured if I
> were to get caught, they'd nail me under the pilot insecurity act. So I
> figured I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical after I get
> an eye infection. Not sure which is preferable.
>
> You've got a point, though. Maybe someone should suggest to them that
> they need to start giving all passengers rectal exams before they board.

So this is what it's come to. In middle school we smuggled our cigarettes
around in our bras to avoid nic fits before class, before exams, etc. Now we
need to smuggle our contact solution in our bra, just to avoid getting our
eyes irritated or infected on an airplane ride. Progress is great.

[John Gaquin]

"Meghan Taylor" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> .... I care that I
>> >> can't take my contacts out on a transatlantic flight ....
>>
>> I thought about smuggling contact solution in my bra,...
>> ...I can either lose my certificates or lose my medical .....
>>
>
> So this is what it's come to... Now we
> need to smuggle our contact solution in our bra,


Has it occurred to anyone to simply wear glasses on longer flights?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John Gaquin" > wrote:

> Has it occurred to anyone to simply wear glasses on longer flights?

yes, but a far better solution (no pun) would be for TSA to make
the security provisions appropriate to the risk.

I wonder if people realize all the various reasons for wearing
contacts. It's not just about vanity.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily[_1_]]

Meghan Taylor wrote:
<snip>
>
> So this is what it's come to. In middle school we smuggled our cigarettes
> around in our bras to avoid nic fits before class, before exams, etc. Now we
> need to smuggle our contact solution in our bra, just to avoid getting our
> eyes irritated or infected on an airplane ride. Progress is great.
>
Not quite the same thing.

[John Gaquin]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>
> I wonder if people realize all the various reasons for wearing
> contacts. It's not just about vanity.

Perhaps they don't. Apart from vanity or self-consciousness or personal
comfort, what would those reasons be? Why *couldn't* someone forego
contacts for 8-10 hours or more in the interests of avoiding discomfort or
possible eye damage?

[Emily[_1_]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> I wonder if people realize all the various reasons for wearing
>> contacts. It's not just about vanity.
>
> Perhaps they don't. Apart from vanity or self-consciousness or personal
> comfort, what would those reasons be? Why *couldn't* someone forego
> contacts for 8-10 hours or more in the interests of avoiding discomfort or
> possible eye damage?
>
>
Because I can't drive or navigate an unfamiliar airport in glasses.

Because my eyesight is not correctable to 20/20 with glasses.

And certainly can't deal without contacts on a trip when the airline
loses my luggages (they have a 100% failure rate with me).

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John Gaquin" > wrote:

> > I wonder if people realize all the various reasons for wearing
> > contacts. It's not just about vanity.
>
> Perhaps they don't. Apart from vanity or self-consciousness or personal
> comfort, what would those reasons be? Why *couldn't* someone forego
> contacts for 8-10 hours or more in the interests of avoiding discomfort or
> possible eye damage?

For me, I have disposable contacts. Taking them out pretty much means
throwing them away as they don't store well (I have the extended wear
lenses that I leave in for a week). And my vision is better with the
contacts than with the stupid small lenses in my glasses.

It occurred to me that some people need eyedrops even when they
don't wear contacts (non-prescription drops).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily[_1_]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> "John Gaquin" > wrote:
>
>>> I wonder if people realize all the various reasons for wearing
>>> contacts. It's not just about vanity.
>> Perhaps they don't. Apart from vanity or self-consciousness or personal
>> comfort, what would those reasons be? Why *couldn't* someone forego
>> contacts for 8-10 hours or more in the interests of avoiding discomfort or
>> possible eye damage?
>
> For me, I have disposable contacts. Taking them out pretty much means
> throwing them away as they don't store well (I have the extended wear
> lenses that I leave in for a week). And my vision is better with the
> contacts than with the stupid small lenses in my glasses.
>
> It occurred to me that some people need eyedrops even when they
> don't wear contacts (non-prescription drops).
>
Well, since non-prescription medications are ok in quantities under 4
oz, I'd make the argument that eye drops are non-prescription medication.

[John Gaquin]

"Emily" > wrote in message
>>
>>
> Because I can't drive or navigate an unfamiliar airport in glasses.

I presume that's due to reason #2.

>
> Because my eyesight is not correctable to 20/20 with glasses.

Well, that's a good reason. I'm not up on lens technology. I didn't
realize such a circumstance could exist.

> And certainly can't deal without contacts on a trip when the airline loses
> my luggages (they have a 100% failure rate with me).

Well, that seems reasonable, but... a 100% failure rate? That's bizarre.
There must be some other factors involved.

[John Gaquin]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>
> For me, I have disposable contacts. Taking them out pretty much means
> throwing them away as they don't store well (I have the extended wear
> lenses that I leave in for a week).

OK, that's fair. Its an inconvenience, and a money choice, but I gather you
*could* switch to glasses for the flight if necessary. In ref to Emily's
comment re prescriptions---- couldn't you have your doctor write a scrip for
eye drops or lens solution? And, would that get the solutions through
security?

>And my vision is better with the contacts than with the stupid small lenses
>in my >glasses.

That's your choice. Get larger lenses. I wear simple glasses, basically
readers, but I also hate the small lenses currently in fashion, so I select
slightly larger frames.

[Emily[_1_]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> For me, I have disposable contacts. Taking them out pretty much means
>> throwing them away as they don't store well (I have the extended wear
>> lenses that I leave in for a week).
>
> OK, that's fair. Its an inconvenience, and a money choice, but I gather you
> *could* switch to glasses for the flight if necessary.

Well, no, actually. Where would he get another pair? From his
suitcase, which the airline is sure to lose? I've checked luggage twice
in the past 15 years, and the first time the airline sent it to the
wrong country and the second, the TSA stole a bottle of prescribed
narcotic painkillers out of it. Like I'll trust them with my health
again...and as much as you don't want to admit it, eyesight IS health.
Plus, I kind of need it for my job.

In ref to Emily's
> comment re prescriptions---- couldn't you have your doctor write a scrip for
> eye drops or lens solution? And, would that get the solutions through
> security?

Yes, for prescription drops. Lens solution, thankfully, is allowed in
quantities less than 4 ounces. Actually, all liquid medications are now
allowed in quantities less than 4 ounces. This does not, however,

>> And my vision is better with the contacts than with the stupid small lenses
>> in my >glasses.
>
> That's your choice. Get larger lenses. I wear simple glasses, basically
> readers, but I also hate the small lenses currently in fashion, so I select
> slightly larger frames.

For me, if I get larger lenses, the distortion is too bad for me to see
anything. My ophthalmologist has flat out told me that he will not
allow me to wear large lenses because he doesn't think it's safe for me
to drive in them. So how can I wear them on a plane, check my contacts,
and risk the airline or TSA losing/stealing them? I'd be non-functional
at my destination. I wouldn't be able to drive, and I certainly
wouldn't be able to do the inspection part of my job at all.

And frankly, it's very disappointing to hear a pilot siding with the TSA
in this. The simple fact is, this is unreasonable rule. You sound like
my coworker....when I complained about this at work and she overheard
me, her response was, "Oh, so you'd rather be able to take contact
solution on board and have the plane blow up than be inconvenienced and
safe?" It's that mentality that is very dangerous.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John Gaquin" > wrote:

> > For me, I have disposable contacts. Taking them out pretty much means
> > throwing them away as they don't store well (I have the extended wear
> > lenses that I leave in for a week).
>
> OK, that's fair. Its an inconvenience, and a money choice, but I gather you
> *could* switch to glasses for the flight if necessary.

Do you want to reimburse me for the lenses?

> In ref to Emily's
> comment re prescriptions---- couldn't you have your doctor write a scrip for
> eye drops or lens solution? And, would that get the solutions through
> security?

I believe that a small amount of solution (e.g., 1.5 oz drops) can get through
security now.


>
> >And my vision is better with the contacts than with the stupid small lenses
> >in my >glasses.
>
> That's your choice. Get larger lenses.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm going to spend big bucks to get bigger glasses because
some "security" moron thinks saline is a security risk? get real.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[John Gaquin]

Emily, you'll note that I responded to your post seperately, above. Now
you're responding irately to the points I made to Bob, as if they were
directed to you.

As for your comment about "siding with the TSA" (whatever the hell that
means), -- well, I can't respond to that as it has no rational basis. I
asked a question about the physical ability to switch to glasses from
contact lenses for longer flights. Not whether it would be convenient, or
cheap, or expensive, or fashionable. Merely if it were possible, and if
not, then why not. Now I stand accused of treason against the entire pilot
population. Did I get off track somewhere? Was I out the day they changed
the subject?

[John Gaquin]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>
>> OK, that's fair. Its an inconvenience, and a money choice, but I gather
>> you
>> *could* switch to glasses for the flight if necessary.
>
> Do you want to reimburse me for the lenses?

<sigh> You and Emily go well together. Focus, Bob. Cost has nothing to do
with it. I asked if it were physically possible to switch to glasses for
longer flights. That's all.

>> >And my vision is better with the contacts than with the stupid small
>> >lenses
>> >in my >glasses.
>>
>> That's your choice. Get larger lenses.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. I'm going to spend big bucks to get bigger glasses
> because
> some "security" moron thinks saline is a security risk? get real.

Why is it ridiculous? Your choice of "stupid small lenses" now forces you
to stay with contacts in order to maintain adequate vision, I gather. So
the real answer, if you chose to answer the question that was asked, appears
to be something along the lines of .... 'Yes, I could switch, but these
stupid small glasses I picked because they are fashionable really don't work
worth a crap, and I don't want to spend the money to get glasses that would
actually help me see.'

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Because I can't drive or navigate an unfamiliar airport in glasses.

Why not?

> Because my eyesight is not correctable to 20/20 with glasses.

What type of correction do you require?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"John Gaquin" > wrote:

> >> OK, that's fair. Its an inconvenience, and a money choice, but I gather
> >> you
> >> *could* switch to glasses for the flight if necessary.
> >
> > Do you want to reimburse me for the lenses?
>
> <sigh> You and Emily go well together. Focus, Bob. Cost has nothing to do
> with it. I asked if it were physically possible to switch to glasses for
> longer flights. That's all.

Focus yourself (no pun). You didn't merely ask if it was physically possible.
And I maintain that switching to glassess is NOT necessary.

>
> >> >And my vision is better with the contacts than with the stupid small
> >> >lenses
> >> >in my >glasses.
> >>
> >> That's your choice. Get larger lenses.
> >
> > Don't be ridiculous. I'm going to spend big bucks to get bigger glasses
> > because
> > some "security" moron thinks saline is a security risk? get real.
>
> Why is it ridiculous?

Because the cost is not justified.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily[_1_]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> Emily, you'll note that I responded to your post seperately, above. Now
> you're responding irately to the points I made to Bob, as if they were
> directed to you.
>
> As for your comment about "siding with the TSA" (whatever the hell that
> means), -- well, I can't respond to that as it has no rational basis. I
> asked a question about the physical ability to switch to glasses from
> contact lenses for longer flights.

And I told you that it was not possible. Did you ever consider that not
being able to see makes an evacuation from an airliner virtually
impossible? Why would I want to risk my life like that? I wear low
heels and no nylons when I fly, why would I want to wear glasses and
risk not being able to evacuate? Or risk getting fired when I can't do
my job when I get where I'm going? Or not being able to drive the
rental car?

Besides, you see taking contacts out on the plane and throwing them away
as a solution. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

The whole thing is simply wrong.


>Not whether it would be convenient, or
> cheap, or expensive, or fashionable. Merely if it were possible, and if
> not, then why not. Now I stand accused of treason against the entire pilot
> population.

No, just the population of people who are sick of being treated like
criminals. I should NOT have to justify my use of a medical device to
you, the TSA, or anyone else.

Fortunately, it's a moot point since the TSA allows contact solution to
be carried on again. At least someone has a little bit of common sense.

[Emily[_1_]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>>> in my >glasses.
>>> That's your choice. Get larger lenses.
>> Don't be ridiculous. I'm going to spend big bucks to get bigger glasses
>> because
>> some "security" moron thinks saline is a security risk? get real.
>
> Why is it ridiculous? Your choice of "stupid small lenses"

For some of us, small lenses are not a choice.

[John Gaquin]

"Emily" > wrote in message
>
> And I told you that it was not possible.

To which I responded succinctly "... Well, that's a good reason. I'm not
up on lens technology. I didn't realize such a circumstance could exist..."

All your subsequent ranting has been a misdirected digression, irrelevant to
the main question.

[John Gaquin]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>
> You didn't merely ask if it was physically possible.

Quote:
>> I wonder if people realize all the various reasons for wearing
>> contacts. It's not just about vanity.
>
> Perhaps they don't. Apart from vanity or self-consciousness or personal
> comfort, what would those reasons be? Why *couldn't* someone forego
> contacts for 8-10 hours or more in the interests of avoiding discomfort or
> possible eye damage?
end quote

I think the context point ought to have been quite clear.



>> Why is it ridiculous?
>
> Because the cost is not justified.

Again, you're back to personal choice.

[John Gaquin]

"Emily" > wrote in message .
>>
>> Why is it ridiculous? Your choice of "stupid small lenses"
>
> For some of us, small lenses are not a choice.

Emily, you must pay attention. The reference by Bob was to the "stupid
small lenses" in his glasses, not to his or your contact lenses.

[Emily[_1_]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message .
>>> Why is it ridiculous? Your choice of "stupid small lenses"
>> For some of us, small lenses are not a choice.
>
> Emily, you must pay attention. The reference by Bob was to the "stupid
> small lenses" in his glasses, not to his or your contact lenses.
>
>
I am paying attention. Bob was talking about his "stupid small lenses".
I agreed and said that for some of us, small eyeglass lenses are not a
choice, they are a requirement. I phrased it badly, but I was talking
about eyeglasses, not contacts.

[Emily[_1_]]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
>> And I told you that it was not possible.
>
> To which I responded succinctly "... Well, that's a good reason. I'm not
> up on lens technology. I didn't realize such a circumstance could exist..."
>
> All your subsequent ranting has been a misdirected digression, irrelevant to
> the main question.
>
>
In your opinion.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> And frankly, it's very disappointing to hear a pilot siding with the TSA
> in this. The simple fact is, this is unreasonable rule. You sound like
> my coworker....when I complained about this at work and she overheard
> me, her response was, "Oh, so you'd rather be able to take contact
> solution on board and have the plane blow up than be inconvenienced and
> safe?" It's that mentality that is very dangerous.

Yes. It's a climate of fear that makes it easy to eliminate civil
liberties. And yet, regardless of what anyone might think over the
short term, civil liberties are _far_ more important than protecting
against a few rare terrorists.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Javier[_1_]]

> And certainly can't deal without contacts on a trip when the airline
> loses my luggages (they have a 100% failure rate with me).

Does this mean that every time you traveled by airlines, they lost
some/all of your luggage? How often do you fly?

It sounds bizarre. I've had bags delayed twice since 1986, but never a
lost bag. I travel by airlines several times a year, sometimes to
international destinations.

-jav

[Jose[_1_]]

> Does this mean that every time you traveled by airlines, they lost some/all of your luggage? How often do you fly?

Dunno about Emily, but for me it's destination dependent. Every time I
travel from a specific destination to a certain terminal at JFK, my
luggage gets rifled and destroyed, and the airline won't take
responsibility.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Javier wrote:
>> And certainly can't deal without contacts on a trip when the airline
>> loses my luggages (they have a 100% failure rate with me).
>
> Does this mean that every time you traveled by airlines, they lost
> some/all of your luggage? How often do you fly?
>
> It sounds bizarre. I've had bags delayed twice since 1986, but never a
> lost bag. I travel by airlines several times a year, sometimes to
> international destinations.
>
> -jav

I fly about once a month. I've checked bags twice in the past fifteen
years (that's right, I was barely a teenager when I stopped checking bags).

So yes, every time I have checked bags (twice), they have lost my
luggage or stolen something out of it. One loss due to the airline and
one theft due to the TSA.

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

Emily wrote:
> So yes, every time I have checked bags (twice), they have lost my
> luggage or stolen something out of it. One loss due to the airline and
> one theft due to the TSA.

Then put a handgun (or pieces of one) in your luggage, declare it, and
you can then lock the luggage... They are not allowed to open it unless
you are present...

[Jay Beckman]

"Emily" > wrote in message
. ..
> I fly about once a month. I've checked bags twice in the past fifteen
> years (that's right, I was barely a teenager when I stopped checking
> bags).
>
> So yes, every time I have checked bags (twice), they have lost my luggage
> or stolen something out of it. One loss due to the airline and one theft
> due to the TSA.

You must be seriously "snake bit."

I fly 16-20 times a month (and have done so for the better part of 10 years
now) and always have to check a bag. Aside from the inevitable lost (ie ...
missed connection) bag going through Philadelphia, I've never had a bag
broken into or had anything stolen.

(Knock Wood)

Now if US Airways makes good on the rumor to take all domestic ops back to
Pittsburgh so that I can avoid Philly altogether, life would be really good.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message news:PLgNg.19619
>
> ....Aside from the inevitable lost (ie ... missed connection) bag going
> through Philadelphia, I've never had a bag broken into or had anything
> stolen.

Your experience matches mine, Jay. Not counting crew time, I and my family
have travelled occasionally over the past 25 years or more, plus in the
early-mid 70s I spent 3 years continuously on the road (well, except for 3
weeks). In all that time I (we) have had a few explainable misconnects, but
no actual losses, and nothing stolen.

>
> Now if US Airways makes good on the rumor to take all domestic ops back to
> Pittsburgh so that I can avoid Philly altogether, life would be really
> good.

I hadn't heard that. Interesting. So, Allegheny back to its roots, eh? I
wonder if there are still any old Piedmont folks around USAir, and how they
might feel about that.

[Emily[_1_]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Emily" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I fly about once a month. I've checked bags twice in the past fifteen
>> years (that's right, I was barely a teenager when I stopped checking
>> bags).
>>
>> So yes, every time I have checked bags (twice), they have lost my luggage
>> or stolen something out of it. One loss due to the airline and one theft
>> due to the TSA.
>
> You must be seriously "snake bit."
>
> I fly 16-20 times a month (and have done so for the better part of 10 years
> now) and always have to check a bag. Aside from the inevitable lost (ie ...
> missed connection) bag going through Philadelphia, I've never had a bag
> broken into or had anything stolen.

Oh, the bag wasn't broken into. I came home from a trip with a sprained
ankle a few months ago. Because of the sprained ankled, I'd decided to
check the carryon. Got home, was in pain, went into the suitcase to
grab the Vicodin, which was packed right on top...surprise, no Vicodin,
but a letter from the TSA saying my bag had been opened and searched.
So yeah. Snake bit.