Is that so? Thanks Eastcoaster!

I always thought that Zippo fuel was not absorbed. In fact, when I do a DGs refresher, the Zippo is often held as the standard example of the unabsorbed liquid-fuel lighter, which is why I've never bought one. (I don't smoke but I like shiny things.)

Anyway it just goes to show how much the DGs folk know. And what they cram our heads full of! Can't wait to mouth off at the next refresher... :p

Cheers... :ok:

MRs SLF and I were heading back to Seattle from San Francisco. On handing over the hold lugaage the Alaskan Air rep. asked if we had a list of items including matches in the hold luggage. I replied yes, a small book of matches from the Hayes Street Grill (a reminder of our meal there). We were told that matches were not allowed in the hold luggae and had to be in our carry on!!

Go figure

Just goes to show how much of a disparity exists between the rules and guidelines being issued by the various regulators. No wonder pax find it so confusing! :ugh:

Anyone recall Philippines 434?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp...nes_Flight_434

JAS

So, let me get this straight:

My Zippo lighter contains unabsorbed liquid fuel, unless you're talking to the FAA (who make the rules for the USA), in which case it contains absorbed liquid fuel and is perfectly OK; unless I plan to fly to the USA with DLH in which case it's prohibited, despite the fact they allow one lighter so long as it is filled with fully absorbed liquid fuel (which it is) and it is carried on the person and not in luggage or carry-on bag (which it also is)!?! And despite the fact that the FAA allow it in the cabin?? What gives? :rolleyes: :ugh: :confused:

Maybe I should just quit!

I think that it goes to show what a complete farce this security charade has become. It is now high time that a conference in sanctioned to allow knowledgeable, pragmatic experts (not politicians or anybody with vested interests in the security behemoth!) and pilot and engineering reperesentatives to come up with a practical and logical set of procedures that allow the front-line people in this industry to get on with their jobs unmolested, the travelling public to proceed on their lawful business and implement effective screening and profiling measures to actually identify the potential bad people (and not necessarily the 'terrorist').

SLFStuckInTheBack:

Matches are not allowed in the hold for a very good reason. Can you imagine that 400 bags (for example) could move around and the friction could just be applied to a bag at the bottom of the pile?

I can remember when I was a captain in Transport Command that one of our VC-10s had a hold fire (if my memory serves me right) on the descent into Akrotiri in Cyprus. They were very lucky to get the aircraft and its contents on to the ground without any fatalities.

The cause was the rubbing together of matches in a soldier's luggage.

Binary Bombs my arse...its all an excuse to invent un-needed jobs...its a bit like HIPS packs for houses...

The government realise we have no real industry in Britain anymore so is content to go along with any hair brained ideas that create made up employment, in this case in the form of added security people!!

Not to mention the £££ Millions the airports are now making from us selling us stupid little plastic bags to put tiny bottles of liquids in!!

WERE BEING CONNED!!!

Well, this guy found a way around the nonsense:
 

Man chugs vodka at airport security

Thursday Dec 13 16:00 AEDT


By ninemsn staff

A German man nearly died of alcohol poisoning after sculling a litre of vodka at an airport security check point.

The 64-year old was changing planes in Nuremberg after holidaying in Egypt where he purchased the vodka. Airport security told him he could not take the bottle on board his flight to Dresden.

Nuremberg airport, like many others around the world, doesn't allows passengers to carry large amounts of liquid onto a plane. Given the option of either throwing the vodka away or paying an extra fee to have it put onto the plane, the man drank the entire bottle dry in a matter of minutes.

Police said he was soon unable to stand and a doctor was called to treat him. He was later taken to a nearby hospital and officials said he should be able to complete his journey home in the next few days.



http://optuszoo.news.ninemsn.com.au/img/hw_ninelogo.gif

Also in today's news:

New rules end confiscation of duty-free liquids bought at Singapore airport from transfer passengers

Today, the European Commission has adopted a regulation allowing air passengers arriving from Singapore and transferring at an EU airport to take duty-free liquids on-board their connecting flights. When changing planes in the EU, these passengers will no longer be obliged to abandon liquids bought at Singapore airport and carried in their cabin baggage. This is the first application of a recent regulation that introduced the possibility of such exemptions for liquids bought in the airports of third countries.

The world has gone mad. Let's face it,if you are a terrorist and want to create havoc in New York,London etc just detonate something on the subway.Given the reaction to 9/11 and Richard Read the effect would create ten times more hassle which is the objective. OBL must be laughing in his cave:confused:

The Vodka story has just brought a blinding realisation to me.

If I buy a bottle of spirits in T4 duty free on my way from LHR to COS (Colorado Springs) I go via ORD where I enter the US. When I check-in for my onbound flight I am going to have a problem if I troll up carrying my bottle of Glenfiddich in a BAA placcy bag .... and I don't think putting it into my hold baggage at O'Hare is an option.

Hmmmmm.

:ugh:

Did not the long time bomb disposal head in NI (Lt Col Wylde??) cast doubt on the technical feasibility of the alleged liquid explosive plot?
Personally, it seems to me that it was a distraction from Israel bombing Lebanon - thats where most of our so called intelligence on mid east terror comes from - but they couldn't be bothered to give us an exit strategy so we will have to put up with the b*l*s*it for a while yet - unless we grow balls and stand up to the 'effin nonsense.

The possibility of a liguid bianry bomb was COPMPREHENSIVELY rejected by a number of different folks. Several current affairs progs and newspapers printed detailed refutation of the 'threat'. This was done within a couple of weeks of the ban being brought in.

It was apparent that to make such a device in an equipped laboratory on the ground with knowledgable people - was difficult. To do so in the dunny of an a commercial air transport - was impossible.

Naturally, nothing has changed.

The interesting thing is that the defence in any upcoming trial should therefore be able to prove that in mitigation. Their clients may have been attempting mass murder, but they have an obligation to show the court that in fact, they didn't have the means.
Let's wait for the trial, and if it emerges that it isn't rally possible, then let's take the fight to the next stage.

Oh, for crying out loud...

Anybody with an elementary understanding of chemistry knows that manufacturing a "binary bomb" in an aircraft toilet is simply not on.

Especially since emptying a couple of bottles of duty-free 'cask proof' Scotch (60%+ alcohol) on the floor and setting fire to it would be a lot more effective.

You're right, nothing will change, and ignorance reigns.

Never do this on a Glasgow or Edinburgh flight unless you like disemebarking on a stretcher.