×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hockey Sticks Among Carry-On Items TSA Has Cleared For Planes

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the clearing-stick dept.

Government 276

coondoggie writes "As of April 25th the Transportation Security Administration will let a bunch of previously prohibited items such as small pocket knives and what it calls 'novelty' or toy bats to be taken on aircraft as carry-ons. The idea the agency said was to let Transportation Security Officers better focus their efforts on spotting higher-threat items such as explosives and guns."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

276 comments

about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099705)

Experience teaches what common-sense does not.

Re:about time (5, Interesting)

SourceFrog (627014) | about a year ago | (#43100345)

Oh please, it will be "about time" when they scrap the TSA or replace with it something much smaller, leaner, less expensive, and more effective at what it's supposed to do.

This amounts to little more than a PR move, throwing a few scraps to the plebs to make us somehow feel like 'common sense is breaking out', and it's pathetic that our standards are so low now, that we actually respond like dogs with tails wagging at this incredibly negligibly small change in the grand scheme of the TSA's operations. Will this in any significant way change the fact that they will continue to suck $8 billion a year of taxpayer money to violate the 4th amendment rights and dignity of American travellers? No? Then what is the "about time" that you refer to?

Re:about time (4, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43100523)

You're on the right track.

Just disband the whole frigging Homeland Security. Put Customs back as a separate and distinct agency, ditto with Border Patrol. Screw the whole Homeland Security thing. It was bullshit when they thought it up, it's bullshit today. Janet Napolitano spends less time worrying about security, than about how to stop "piracy" and increasing corporate profits. She has her TSA agents stopping traffic on Interstate 40, in Tennessee, and shaking them down. Anyone with a thousand dollars cash is a "suspect". Anyone with an expensive car is a "suspect". Anyone who doesn't kiss the TSA agent's ass is a "suspect". I guess this an alternative for TSA agents who don't prefer fondling little children and old ladies in airports.

Disband Homeland Security, send Napolitano packing, and we can save the fifty million dollars she just wasted on uniforms.

Odd that most cops have to purchase their own uniforms, but TSA has a contract to buy uniforms for their degenerate agents.

we're nerds (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099709)

Let us know when they change their policy on light sabers.

Re:we're nerds (4, Insightful)

funwithBSD (245349) | about a year ago | (#43099875)

If you can't tell them "This is not the lightsaber you are looking for." and make it it stick... you don't deserve to carry a lightsaber.

Sweet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099715)

Game On Eh!

Re:Sweet (2)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year ago | (#43100035)

Sky marshal's going to have you in the penalty box tout de suite for cracking jokes about security, hoser. Or is it "Atmosphere mounty" up your way?

Re:Sweet (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100121)

Sky marshal's going to have you in the penalty box tout de suite for cracking jokes about security, hoser.

2:00 minutes for boarding.

Oh good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099745)

In addition to screaming brats we will now have hockey games in the aisles. Can't wait to fly with that for four hours.

Re:Oh good (2)

tattood (855883) | about a year ago | (#43099949)

I find it funny that they allow golf clubs, but a maximum of 2.

Transportation Stupidity Administration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099763)

Box cutters !!!!

What a puck up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099765)

Forgive me, I had to.

where do you store it? (2, Insightful)

lseltzer (311306) | about a year ago | (#43099771)

It won't fit under the seat in front of you or the overhead bin.

Re:where do you store it? (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#43099821)

It would get checked at the gate, just like any other large item. So it still wouldn't be brought onboard a plane. All this is is an attempt to deflect some of the criticism of the TSA as security theater

Re:where do you store it? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100701)

It would get checked at the gate, just like any other large item. So it still wouldn't be brought onboard a plane. All this is is an attempt to deflect some of the criticism of the TSA as security theater

Perhaps, BUT consider this. If they do allow items such as "small pocket knives" etc. I think this is just a prelude to another (likely staged) "incident" that they will parade throughout the media proclaiming "See, we are needed. See, there is danger. See, you need to increase our budget and take more citizen rights away. Do it. Do it NOW!"

You know you want to.

Re:where do you store it? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43100273)

It won't fit under the seat in front of you or the overhead bin.

A hockey stick certainly would fit in an overhead bin, at least on any aircraft larger than the Embraer/CRJ types used by commuter and express operators.

Re:where do you store it? (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year ago | (#43100593)

It won't fit under the seat in front of you or the overhead bin.

A hockey stick certainly would fit in an overhead bin, at least on any aircraft larger than the Embraer/CRJ types used by commuter and express operators.

Yes, but it doesn't meet the dimensions required to qualify as carry on. According to the FAA website: [faa.gov]

The maximum size carry-on bag for most airlines is 45 linear inches (the total of the height, width, and depth of the bag). Anything larger should be checked. No oversize packages or luggage can be stowed onboard.

So while the TSA may allow it through the checkpoint, the airline should not allow it as carry-on and it should be gate checked. Unless a hockey stick is less than 45 inches. I can't say I really know for sure. But this This site indicates the smallest Junior size is 46 inches. [hockeystickexpert.com]

I guess that's OK (5, Funny)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a year ago | (#43099775)

as long as people still aren't allowed to carry on enough liquid to make an ice rink.

Re:I guess that's OK (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100549)

The international organization for flight standards (ICAO), that the TSA is now coming into alignment with, is based in Montreal. The hockey stick thing makes sense now, eh?

Of course, I'm now afraid that if a couple of passengers got into a fight, a hockey game might break out.

Why not actually secure airports? (4, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#43099779)

You know, so that a woman can't park in an airline employee lot (which requires going through 2 security gates, one that looks at a badge and one that actually has to scan the airport-issued badge before you can park there), board an employee bus, and get dropped off on the ramp. As someone who works at an airport (actually the same one where all this happened), actual airport security is a joke. It is handled by minimum-wage contractors. I know plenty of other stores of people I've worked with that are even worse than this, but for the protection of them and myself I won't bring them up.

Re:Why not actually secure airports? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100735)

Because that would require actual effort and competent employees who don't feel the need to leap on an 85 year old woman in a wheelchair and wrestle her to the ground to prove how big their manhood is.

Too big? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099789)

How can a set of golf clubs be a permissible carryon - they exceed the dimensions of a carryon published by the airlines.

Re:Too big? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43099811)

I'm guessing plane-side-checked.

Re:Too big? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year ago | (#43099941)

You don't buy an extra ticket for your golf clubs? On second thought, anybody who throws around money like that would probably fly a charter/private plane and avoid all the TSA security restrictions.

Re:Too big? (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43100501)

How can a set of golf clubs be a permissible carryon - they exceed the dimensions of a carryon published by the airlines.
You've seen through their ruse. They're going to allow you to have all these exciting carry-ons, but then the smart people realize that those are too big anyway and can't be allowed on the plane. They will have to be gate checked. So the change in ruling has no effect, other than PR.

Let me get this straight (5, Insightful)

CncRobot (2849261) | about a year ago | (#43099791)

The TSA is now allowing the actual types of things used on 9/11, but still banning shampoo and bottled water?

If there is ONE THING the TSA should ban is small knives (not that I agree with that), since they are now allowing those shouldn't they just admit they shouldn't need to exist?

Re:Let me get this straight (3)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about a year ago | (#43099831)

If you take a look they still ban small knives, just not super tiny toy swiss army knife style ones that people forget are on their keychains.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43100535)

If you take a look they still ban small knives, just not super tiny toy swiss army knife style ones that people forget are on their keychains.

The other day I was digging around in my coat pocket and came across a matchbook that I had gotten at Papadeaux in Dallas probably 4 years ago. That got me to wondering how many airplanes I have been on since then with that in my coat pocket. I should count myself lucky not to have a TSA agent permanently lodged in my rectum at this point.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | about a year ago | (#43099885)

Not to mention my double edged razor blades.

I mean, come on, terrorist don't shave!

Re:Let me get this straight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100527)

For any short trip where I don't have checked bags I bring my DE in my carry-on, and I haven't yet been flagged for it. I don't bring extras though, just the one blade in the safety razor. Are you bringing the extra blades in carry-on?

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

drunk_punk (2841507) | about a year ago | (#43099901)

Shampoo in the eyeball is no laughing matter... The water thing never made sense to me though, all that needs to be done is to have the passenger drink some. If they pass out- Ha, pioson. If not, carry on good citizen. Until next time...

Re:Let me get this straight (3, Interesting)

Amouth (879122) | about a year ago | (#43100013)

I still remember them making me put an empty clear plastic bottle through the x-ray machine. I love having a water bottle, and my solution is to finish it and then go through the line with it and refill on the other side and not have to pay 2-3$ for a drink on the other side. I was in line, had it in my hand and din't think about it and the lady stopped me at the medal detector and told me i had to put it through the x-ray. Again, they made me x-ray an empty, clear plastic bottle. I was just a bit perplexed.

Re:Let me get this straight (1)

CncRobot (2849261) | about a year ago | (#43100157)

Didn't Johnson and Johnson no tears baby shampoo just get banned for causing cancer? I guess shampoo to the eye either makes you cry or get cancer.

We got bigger problems (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100063)

It doesn't matter what they ban or do not ban. The fact is that the most "devastating" attack in recent American history was done by some dudes with box cutters. Not a suicide vest, not machine guns, or machetes, or a big bomb. We lost to box cutters. I think we have bigger problems.

Re:We got bigger problems (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#43100595)

I may be wrong, but I think that problem was partially solved.

Remember, for at least 20 years, passengers had been instructed over and over to just cooperate with hijackers. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania, diverted from it's intended target, is proof that the conditioning can be broken.

All we need to do, is to stop being victims. Fight back, and win or lose, you won't be a hostage.

Re:Let me get this straight (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100487)

Uh, no.

The real threat isn't another 9/11-type event. They can no longer hijack an airplane with a box cutter, even if the plane is filled with nothing but girl scouts and smurfs. They will be dead before you reach the ground, mission unaccomplished. At worst, one or two people will be stabbed. No one is going to cooperate with these guys for fear of their own lives, because in they will be dead anyway.

But there is still the threat of someone sneaking a bomb on board to kill all passengers and destroy the aircraft when it is over a city so the debris hurts people and buildings on the ground, etc.

That's great... (4, Funny)

evil_aaronm (671521) | about a year ago | (#43099797)

But I play lacrosse, you insensitive clods!

Re:That's great... (4, Funny)

Kiaser Zohsay (20134) | about a year ago | (#43099967)

Lacrosse sticks are seriously deadly weapons, but that is mostly becasue they are carried by lacrosse players. Those guys are crazy.

Better Luggage Handling (5, Insightful)

lazarus (2879) | about a year ago | (#43099873)

Let's face it. The reason people drag all of their worldly possessions with them as carry-on is because we don't trust the baggage handlers to not destroy/steal/lose our stuff. I see this every time I fly. People don't actually want to lug a 49.9 lb wheeled bag onto the plane and then try to find/lift/get help to put it in an overhead compartment.

The carry-on problem is being caused by the baggage problem. If you solve the baggage problem, TSA security would be checking small handbags or pocket change not hockey sticks, LAN party servers, thirty pairs of shoes, etc.

Oh, and charging people for checked bags is making the problem worse, not better. What is it about the airline industry that has made every decision maker involved utterly stupid? The only aspect of air travel I can think of that doesn't operate in a wrong-headed way are the mechanics who keep the planes from falling out of the sky.

{rant/}

Re:Better Luggage Handling (5, Funny)

Amouth (879122) | about a year ago | (#43100037)

The only aspect of air travel I can think of that doesn't operate in a wrong-headed way are the mechanics who keep the planes from falling out of the sky.

{rant/}

Do your self a favor and don't look into that one too much.

Re:Better Luggage Packing (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#43100207)

And why are people dragging all of their worldly possessions on a 3-day trip to Ft. Lauderdale? Pack better, and you will see a lot of these problems disappear. I've worked on the ramp several years, and most of the times that I've seen bags damaged/lost (lost as in won't make your flight) is because they are so overpacked or packed lopsided that they fall off a tug, get stuck under other bags weighing 65lbs, or just burst open. It seems like in most cases the bags that are the most overpacked are also bags that are 10 years old, ripped, and have one or both handles broken off. If people didn't overpack as much as they do, things would not be as bad as they are. Also, it seems like most people like to buy these bags that have all these unnecessary buckles, straps, and knobs that get caught on literally everything. The doors and floors of the cargoholds are in most cases not smooth. There are screws sticking up, edges of panels are raised up, and the door designs of MD-88/90/DC-9s are so poorly designed that zippers and other random parts are bound to get stuck and snap off. The best suitcase to buy is one of the harder, plastic 4 wheel spinners, as they are the least likely to get caught, and I don't think I've ever seen broken handles on them. But all of these cheap, flimsy cloth bags with little to no structural support? Of course they're going to get broken, they are made as cheap as possible. And steal stuff? We're lucky if we have 40 minutes to offload 100 bags and put 100 bags back on to a plane. Ignoring the fact that most baggage handlers would never steal stuff, they wouldn't even have the time to steal stuff if they wanted to. Purchase suitcases wisely, use common sense when packing (you dont need 7 outfits and 5 pairs of shoes for a weekend trip ladies, sorry), and your bags will last longer and all your stuff will be waiting for you when you land.

Oh, and for the love of god, if you buy a puppy from an out of state breeder, drive over there and pick your dog up yourself. Those things get terrified when they get stuck in a cargo hold for 5 hours.

Re:Better Luggage Packing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100565)

I've never had anything stolen and I've flown several times a year for many years leaving fairly valuable things in my luggage. So IF the GP is correct, it's the perception of theft and not the theft itself that is the problem. But it's not the baggage handlers stealing it, it's the inspectors.

However, your rant about how people should buy luggage is totally backwards. People buy the luggage they want for the reasons that are important to them. If the airlines' systems don't work, that's a problem with the airlines/airports, not with the customer. Period. Those harder plastic ones? I think they suck and I'm not going to buy one just to guarantee you don't break it.

And for the record, my GF DOES need 7 outfits and 5 pairs of shoes for a weekend trip and god help you if you ever suggest otherwise to her face. (I speak from experience.)

Re:Better Luggage Packing (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year ago | (#43100649)

And for the record, my GF DOES need 7 outfits and 5 pairs of shoes for a weekend trip and god help you if you ever suggest otherwise to her face. (I speak from experience.)

Let me know the next time you fly, and I'll steal your gf's whip for you ;)

Re:Better Luggage Packing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100573)

way to miss the entire context of the article!

Re:Better Luggage Packing (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43100577)

It sounds like airplane baggage holds are a horrible place to put luggage in general. That is not a problem of the luggage. And it is quite evident that SOMEONE is stealing stuff from luggage. It's probably the TSA agents, not the ramp personnel. The ramp people are too busy. The TSA feel like they are the Gestapo and entitled to steal whatever they want from whomever they want.

Re:Better Luggage Handling (1)

jbwolfe (241413) | about a year ago | (#43100241)

What is it about the airline industry that has made every decision maker involved utterly stupid?

I suppose, the desire to eke out a profit in what is now a highly competitive pricing environment. But I agree the nickle and dime-ing is annoying. They never ask me what I think of their ideas when they come up with stupid shit. They tell me to shut up and fly the plane.

The only aspect of air travel I can think of that doesn't operate in a wrong-headed way are the mechanics who keep the planes from falling out of the sky.

From my perspective (and the view is terrific), I always thought I did a pretty good job of keeping the plane from falling out of the sky, though I must admit I've had a few hard landings.

Re:Better Luggage Handling (1)

lazarus (2879) | about a year ago | (#43100515)

Totally correct, and thanks for replying. I was thinking of the airline industry exclusive of the actual flying of the plane. I have nothing but praise for the pilots and for that matter the air traffic controllers. I can remember a time when it wasn't uncommon to circle an airport for 20 minutes before landing. That just never happens now.

Re: Hard landings. Landed in Las Vegas on Sunday and actually bounced. First time for me. No complains though, no way in hell I could do it...

Re:Better Luggage Handling (1)

Thomasje (709120) | about a year ago | (#43100421)

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I never had anything stolen or destroyed from my checked luggage. Even so, I try to travel light and cram everything into my carry-on... So I won't have to wait for half an hour or an hour at the carrousel, and so I won't have to pay the $25 or more per checked bag.

Re:Better Luggage Handling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100495)

Personally the reason for me is the baggage fees.

Re:Better Luggage Handling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100499)

No. Luggage fees. In Europe flying is not such a zoo as in US.

Re:Better Luggage Handling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100517)

When I fly carry-on only it's to get the hell off the plane and to a taxi/limo/friend's car/whatever as quickly as possible.

Re:Better Luggage Handling (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#43100585)

Let's face it. The reason people drag all of their worldly possessions with them as carry-on is because we don't trust the baggage handlers to not destroy/steal/lose our stuff. I see this every time I fly.

Nope. Until airlines starting charging for baggage a few years back, finding room in the overhead bins was generally pretty easy outside of major business travel routes or high travel volume destinations/times.
 

Oh, and charging people for checked bags is making the problem worse, not better. What is it about the airline industry that has made every decision maker involved utterly stupid?

Expedia, Travelocity, Kayak... all the tools that let people chose to fly United instead of Delta because tickets on United are $2 cheaper. Airlines have been in an ongoing price war ever since deregulation in the 70's....and people insist on getting 60's level service at 2013 level prices.
 
One of the problems with running a business in the US is that Americans, in general, are cheap bastards. Nor is this new... the chain discount places have been exploiting this since the early 20th century.

Re:Better Luggage Handling (2)

Cimexus (1355033) | about a year ago | (#43100621)

I think it's just baggage fees in the US that are the problem. People carrying insane amounts of carry on baggage and the whole "get on the plane early so you can get a spot for all your stuff in the overhead lockers" rigmarole is unique to the US - I'd never seen anything like it before I travelled in the US.

Here in Australia airlines still include at least one checked bag as part of the ticket price. It's always been that way. Not for the discount airlines admittedly (Tiger, Jetstar), but they only have a small part of the market. I'm talking about the mainline airlines that account for the majority of flights (i.e. Qantas, Virgin). So most people check most of their stuff and carry on merely a small laptop bag or purse or something. In fact for short flights (2 hours) I don't carry anything on at all (except for my wallet and phone).

You don't appreciate how good air travel is in Australia (small to non-existent security lines, RFID check-in and baggage tagging so no check-in lines (on Qantas at least), no need to take your shoes off, no liquids restrictions on domestic flights etc.) until you've compared it to the US. Flying in the US is a chaotic, stressful experience ... here it's a breeze 9 times out of 10.

This works great until Canadian terrorist hijack.. (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#43099879)

This is going to be great until a bunch of canadian terrorist hi-jack an airliner.

Re:This works great until Canadian terrorist hijac (2)

ShogunTux (1236014) | about a year ago | (#43100151)

And then, like maple syrup, Canada's evil would ooze all over the United States.

Which would then lead to our children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf, pouring mayonnaise over everything, winter 11 months of the year, and having Anne Murray on the radio all day, every day.

Won't somebody think of the children?

Typical way of taking away freedom (5, Insightful)

loganljb (1424009) | about a year ago | (#43099887)

This is a fairly typical way to permanently take away freedom. Take away a LOT of freedom during an 'emergency', then later give back a small portion of that freedom. People will be so relieved by the small concessions that they forget the larger liberties that they no longer enjoy.

Re:Typical way of taking away freedom (-1, Troll)

jbwolfe (241413) | about a year ago | (#43100279)

People will be so relieved by the small concessions that they forget the larger liberties that they no longer enjoy.

Yeah! Like the liberty to be killed by well armed suicidal terrorists who've hijacked my airplane...

Re:Typical way of taking away freedom (2)

loganljb (1424009) | about a year ago | (#43100397)

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of the liberty to take a real bottle of shampoo on an airplane, or the liberty of not having to arrive at the airport an hour or more early only to be subjected to demonstrably ineffective (and possibly, over the long term, dangerous -- although that hasn't been demonstrated because of the refusal of the TSA to perform actual testing) security theater, or the liberty of not having your toddler groped by an underpaid, undertrained, overzealous, security goon.

One of the few truly effective security changes since 9/11 was the very simple expedient of adding always locked, reinforced cabin doors.

While we're on the subject of liberty, someone who had a personal hand in the founding of our country had something very relevant to say about this situation... They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Re:Typical way of taking away freedom (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100557)

Yeah! Like the liberty to be killed by well armed suicidal terrorists who've hijacked my airplane...

And anyone with basic knowledge of the mechanics of folding card stock could kill you by way of the little boxes of snacks they sell on the flights that used to offer meals.

Life is dangerous. Deal with it. Or not, I guess - if you're that concerned about a false sense of safety, surely you're for in-flight anesthesiologists? Passengers who are knocked out surely can't hurt anybody. Sure, you'll have to sign a disclaimer because of the risk of death - but hey, my life shouldn't be in danger because you supposedly want to look out the window.

Keep living on your knees, but please do so on a plastic sheet - the piss running down your legs is getting everywhere.

The ban on knives was cosmetic at best (5, Insightful)

Xanthvar (1046980) | about a year ago | (#43099975)

The ban on knives was cosmetic at best, so the lifting of this ban will not result in any decrease in safety.
Q: "But wait, didn't the terrorists on 9/11 use box cutters to hijack the plane? Couldn't they do it again?"
A: No. The reason that they were able to hijack the plane before, is the "rulebook" basically said to go along with the hijackers, you fly off to some other destination, there is a negotiation that drags things out, and eventually everyone leaves alive, with stories to tell their grandchildren... Only, on 9/11 they changed the "rules".

Today, it doesn't matter what kind of weapon is used to hijack the plane, the bulk of the passengers will use whatever is at hand to beat down the hijackers, because they know they are fighting for their lives now, and if you are going to die, you might as well go down swinging. Coupling this with the _1_ security measure that actually improved airline safety, putting locks on the cockpit doors (which does nothing if they don't actually lock them of course), the chance of hijacking a passenger airliner successfully is almost nil. Maybe a small puddle jumper commuter craft composed of all terrorists would be successful, but in that circumstance, they wouldn't need weapons either.

Yes, someone can still get hurt, and even killed, but you could do that with a pen/pencil or some other pointy object stabbed into the appropriate place. Now maybe someone from the UK will have a different take on this, as they seemed to fear bladed objects, as they appear to be the primary homicide weapon of choice since the general populace doesn't have access to firearms. As an American male, with military training I am not terribly afraid of knives being used to subdue a a plane full of passengers, whoever foolhardy that may be, as I believe that sheer weight of numbers would incapacitate or kill any would be hijacker in this. For most Americans, a knife is a tool, and not a weapon, and while it can be used as such, so can just about anything else, to include bricks, shoes, rocks, sharp sticks, and harsh language.

Just my $.02 worth.

Re:The ban on knives was cosmetic at best (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100089)

Thanks for being so damn insightful. Now they'll outlaw my knitting needles again.

Re:The ban on knives was cosmetic at best (2)

Ecuador (740021) | about a year ago | (#43100181)

You are right. Apparently there are a lot of people fooled by the post 9/11 security theater and are complaining about this change http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/06/travel/tsa-carry-on-changes/ [cnn.com]. These people (air marshals, flight attendants) should know better, but I guess the US government has managed to drop the average citizen IQ by about 20 units in recent years.

What is interesting is that while I have lost numerous swiss army knives and pocket screwdrivers (I always have a multi-tool with me and I often forget to leave it home or check it in when flying), I have had the added insult of being given metal cutlery (fork & knife) in the flight! The TSA yelled at me "THIS IS A KNIFE!" for a tiny 1-inch blade and then they give me a 4+ inch knife to eat my lunch... I don't remember the airlines with the metal knives, but I think it was Lufthansa once that had these flags nailed on the head-rests. The flag-poles where about 20inches long with an extremely sharp point (that could actually nail the head-rest) and were, sadly, a much better weapon than my foldable screwdriver the TSA had confiscated a few minutes earlier...

Re:The ban on knives was cosmetic at best (3, Informative)

jbwolfe (241413) | about a year ago | (#43100367)

Coupling this with the _1_ security measure that actually improved airline safety, putting locks on the cockpit doors (which does nothing if they don't actually lock them of course)

While I prefer hiding behind the locked Kevlar door (it's on the pushback checklist), don't forget some of us are armed with Heckler & Koch's and instructions to shoot to kill...

Re:The ban on knives was cosmetic at best (3, Interesting)

mutube (981006) | about a year ago | (#43100459)

I'm not sure where the comment about the UK and knives came from, or the relevance of being an American male. Your military training might help (assuming you were trained for the situation) but it's not neccessary. In Glasgow, Scotland (UK) an attempted truck-bombing of an airport ended with a baggage handler and other members of the public confronting the terrorists and kicking the crap out of them (to be fair, they were on fire at the time).

As you say, the game has changed. I don't think terrorists have a hope in hell anywhere in the Western world anymore. If I saw someone pull a knife, gun, bomb-vest in a crowded area I'd run right at them. And that's from a yellow-bellied, knife-fearing subject of her Hajesty.

Re:The ban on knives was cosmetic at best (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43100605)

You are correct sir. We would be safer on the plane if everyone were ISSUED a knife rather than forbidden to carry one.

What will this prevent? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100081)

The TSA has not prevented any attacks. Most people use the fallacious argument that because there haven't been any major terrorist attacks carried out, that the TSA is doing its job.

Logically, one can conclude that the TSA is not only not doing its job, but no terrorists have attempted to perform any attacks, therefore the TSA is a fraud and totally worthless. We should eliminate the TSA and go back to how things were pre-9/11. Things were fine before the TSA, and they will continue to be fine after we get rid of the TSA.

The fact there have been no major terrorist attacks since the WTC thing is proof of this. Once we get rid of the TSA, and all airport security, we will have nothing to worry about. Especially if every passenger is carrying guns and/or knives.

So wife can finally bring her nail clippers? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#43100173)

Every time we go through, they take wife's clippers from her. And every time she makes a big deal about it. And after the first couple of times, daughter and I sidle away from her, whistling tunelessly and staring at the ceiling...

Re:So wife can finally bring her nail clippers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100217)

She could, as an option, clip her nails before going to the airport.

A dumb idea, but one she should consider. Is she blonde, or just a tard?

Re:So wife can finally bring her nail clippers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100337)

Every time we go through, they take wife's clippers from her. And every time she makes a big deal about it. And after the first couple of times, daughter and I sidle away from her, whistling tunelessly and staring at the ceiling...

It's good your wife doesn't let people walk all over her. Don't complain.

Rocket launchers okay'd but toothpaste banned (1, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year ago | (#43100187)

That's about as much commonsense as they've used to date. Can we at least agree little old ladies and infants represent a small enough threat that we don't have to give them pat downs or full body scans? People don't realize it but the TSA haven't found a single potential terrorist, not one. So far billions spent and we get a goose egg for all the inconvenient and money.

bear patrol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100561)

must be working!

Re:Rocket launchers okay'd but toothpaste banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100625)

You do realize that the psychos will attach bombs or weapons to old ladies and infants?

Seriously the fuckers poison schools.

Also the threat of being found out is also a determent

Lastly, if the smurfs are getting off on old ladies and infants, they have much bigger problems than the old ladies and infants do.

Shit the puritan influence on this country stinks to high hell, get over it, its the human body I've taken enough figure drawing classes to not be enticed every time I see a nipple, dick or pussy. Or even give a fuck what entices somebody else.

Speed skate blades (2)

GSloop (165220) | about a year ago | (#43100221)

Speed skate blades have never been banned for Carry-on air travel.
[At least as far as I know - they were legal before this change.]

And if you know anything about speed-skate blades, you know they're literally RAZOR sharp 17 inch mini-swords.
They might not be as dangerous as a full-on machete, but pretty damn close.

When I heard about ice blades being fine for carry-on - I was astonished. You can't bring a razor-blade or a small knife, but 17" clap blades you could shave with? Just peachy!

The whole BS around airline security is insane.

My pocket knife and Leatherman have blades ~ 2.5" (1)

Qubit (100461) | about a year ago | (#43100265)

I shouldn't have to check a whole suitcase just so I can have my pocket knife or Leatherman with me when I travel. That's just silly.

The old rule was something like 3 inches, or "diagonally across the guard's badge" (convenient measuring tool, that :-). Most ordinary pocket knives fall into that category.

(and folding knives with locks are safer tools to use, resulting in fewer self-inflicted user injuries... *le sigh*)

Am I allowed to take water on yet? (1)

Jethro (14165) | about a year ago | (#43100355)

Or any liquid in a larger than super-tiny container?

I still remember going through airport security with a leatherman on my belt and not even setting off the metal detector.

Re:Am I allowed to take water on yet? (2)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#43100665)

Or any liquid in a larger than super-tiny container?

No, the water ban is beneficial to all parties (except the traveler. Oh, and the environment). Due to not being able to bring in water from outside, and most people not wanting to pay $5 for a thimble of water inside, the airlines are able to keep the weight down on their flights, resulting in a fuel savings of perhaps as much as 25 cents per flight.Over an entire year and an entire flight, this probably adds up to a small amount of folding money.
And then there are the people who do pay the $5 per thimbleful of water in the airport proper. To the airport vendors, the new regulation was a license to steal. This extra income probably enabled them to buy a whole fleet of congressmen to make sure the rule is never changed.

Re:Am I allowed to take water on yet? (1)

Jethro (14165) | about a year ago | (#43100725)

The sad thing here is I've actually been bringing an empty water bottle and filling it up past security. From the free water fountains. Sure, that's where they put the mind-control drugs, but hey.

The better focus of the TSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43100465)

"As of April 25th the Transportation Security Administration will let a bunch of previously prohibited items such as small pocket knives and what it calls 'novelty' or toy bats to be taken on aircraft as carry-ons. The idea the agency said was to let Transportation Security Officers better focus their efforts on spot higher threat items such as explosives and guns".

With all this airport security, makes me wonder how then can never find all that cocaine that's being smuggled into the USA.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...