Jens Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Just be aware that screeners are taking away ropes. I had a brand spanking new one thrown in the trash a few days ago. I won't bore you with the details, but I went through a huge ordeal and after playing all my cards, in the end, I had no recourse or other options. They were also going to take my harness and draws! -------------------------- I've had checked luggage lost and insurance is a racket, so I always try to carry-on as much "safe stuff" as possible. Perhaps not anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 WTF? Are ropes considered liquids? How did you convince them to let you keep the harness and draws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Can you back out of your flight if they decide they won't allow a certain piece of gear? At some point the gear is worth more than the flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tivoli_mike Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Just be aware that screeners are taking away ropes. I had a brand spanking new one thrown in the trash a few days ago. I won't bore you with the details, but I went through a huge ordeal and after playing all my cards, in the end, I had no recourse or other options. They were also going to take my harness and draws! -------------------------- I've had checked luggage lost and insurance is a racket, so I always try to carry-on as much "safe stuff" as possible. Perhaps not anymore. Actually bore us with the details as to which airport... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 well, they will do that at DEN and JFK. I thought that was pretty normal. In the new climbing (?) there is this moronic article about how you should keep your rack as a check in. There is no way in hell you'd keep it if you were flying out of JFK, LHR or CDG... I check all of my climbing gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Can you back out of your flight if they decide they won't allow a certain piece of gear? At some point the gear is worth more than the flight. Yes, you can back out of your flight--even at the last minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couloir Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 More and more, I think it's starting to make sense to ship all your gear ahead of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 BTW, you can't fly with yogurt either. I learned that lesson the hard way yesterday. It was raspberry too. $0.69 in the trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Airports probably have some pretty good dumpster diving at the moment. When will this stupidity end? Why does TSA hate America so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 They don't hate America; they just don't like yogurt. BTW, you can't get to the dumpsters without having a security clearance pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
still_climbin Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Everyone's getting paranoid. Never seen the overhead bins so empty on a full flight as I did Monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpinfox Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I was just doing a little daydreaming and realized that someone (a hot little brunette vixen for example) could strangle someone with a G-string. In fact, ALL clothes are pretty much potential weapons. I hope TSA will be proactive and prohibit hot brunette vixens from wearing clothes on future flights before this weakness is exploited. OK, back to my daydream now. Thanks for allow hornfox to post on prude website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmace Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Yes, you can back out of your flight--even at the last minute. Even after you checked your bags..? bet that would delay the flight why would you try and board a flight with rope as a carry on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 What I think is stupid is that they switch to banning items after someone's tried to use them in an attack. But terrorists are like Wile E. Coyote! They try something once and then move on to the next ACME product! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmace Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 ya smarter would be to say well they wont try that again.. or they can ban everything..I dont think rope is a far stretch as a banned carry on item..seems reasonable to me same as pretty much anything on my rack... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythosgrl Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Just wear your rope. Wrap it around your body and say it's your sweater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tivoli_mike Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 ya smarter would be to say well they wont try that again.. or they can ban everything..I dont think rope is a far stretch as a banned carry on item..seems reasonable to me same as pretty much anything on my rack... Off a flyertalk.com posting in the safety/security forum... alot of discussion about 1 checked bag and a recreational equipment ban for luggage being considered... This is purely from the rumor mill, but considering the source, I would say that it is likely that some of what he is saying is at least being considered. Yesterday evening, into this morning I was waiting at ORD for my flight to MSP that had been delayed 3 hours. Clearing the security checkpoint, I had an issue with one of the screeners over what liquids were allowed as “essential” non-prescription medications. I asked for a supervisor and was pleasantly surprised when the supervisor (a three striper) backed me up and took the other screener (a two striper) behind Bart’s proverbial woodshed. Anyway, later, while waiting for my flight, I was pacing the terminal, and I came across the supervisor having a coffee. I went up to him to thank him for at least backing me up. Anyway we ended up talking about the whole water ban and the effects that it is having on them and travel. During the discussion I learned a little bit about ORD screening and what is being discussed among the screeners and the FSDs. This screener is apparently on an advisory committee that handles many of the procedural changes that TSA implements. And by procedural, I don’t mean what is allowed, not allowed, but how to manage and run the screening process. First of all, he said that the ban on liquids from a certain point makes sense, but is too much of a reaction. He said that from his understanding the likelihood of this type of plot, the mix and blow-up all on the plane is highly unlikely to succeed. However, he said the risk of the mix being done on the ground is fairly high, but the chances of being caught doing it are also quite high. He said since the ban has come on liquids and gels, the screeners are spending too much time looking for the liquid bottles that many are missing other things. His thought is that passengers should be permitted to bring with them through security any liquid or gel that is still sealed from the factory, and that unsealed items could be brought through if they could determine the actual chemical make-up of the substance. His thought is that in time, over the next couple of months the ban will be relaxed. He seems to think that they will allow liquids in small amounts, probably no container larger than 4oz/120ml. Further, he seems to think that a passenger will be allowed 1L of water as long as it is sealed at the checkpoint. From a screening standpoint, he indicated that liquids would probably be treated the same as laptops, in that they have to be removed from the bag. His other interesting comment on the checkpoint screening is that he admitted that they don’t get everything, and never will. His goal is to minimize the numbers getting through. Second he mentioned some interesting changes that may be coming to checked-luggage in the near future. Most of this he believes has been caused by the liquid ban. As has been reported the numbers of checked luggage has skyrocketed. From what he said the total checked in bags has nearly doubled. (as opposed to what the airlines are saying). Due to this increased number of bags, not all bags are going through CTX or X-Ray, some are just being given a swab test. The problem that apparently is building is that neither the CTX nor X-Ray will detected an IED that isn’t electrical in nature and has inert chemicals. His biggest fear (as well as others fear) is that someone would place the necessary liquids to make a strong chemical reaction in their bag and arrange them in such a way that they are highly likely to combine during the flight with no additional components required, in essence using a plunger, some other pressure sensitive system to move the liquids from one container to the other or a divider with a planned failure point (he mentioned the toothpastes that have the dual chambers). His opinion is that the chances of the device successfully blowing up an aircraft are remote. However, the chances that it would ignite and cause a fire are quite large. Basically, he said they are left with two choices on this; one is to open up every case that has a liquid in it, or ban liquids in the checked luggage. As they currently have no way to determine the actual substance that is in the container, he said that there is very strong commentary that liquids will be prohibited in checked luggage. He said that this is most likely to occur following a relaxation in the liquid ban in carry-on luggage. However, he said this one may come online before the lifting of the liquid ban in the cabin, and if that happens he hopes he is not at the airport when that first comes into effect Following on the checked baggage side of things, he mentioned that one proposal that TSA is seriously floating is limiting each passenger to one checked bag (no sporting equipment, i.e. skis, bikes, golf clubs etc). As I mentioned above, the TSA does not have the capacity to adequately screen all bags for explosives and IED’s. He mentioned that if they could reduce the number of bags screened by half they would be in a better situation to detect the threats. Apparently, 1 in 7 bags currently cause some sort of alarm that requires opening the bag. At ORD he said that equates to 4,000-5,000 bags per day being opened, or approximately 3.5 bags per minute. The baggage backlog is close to causing the system to collapse. If the one bag system was introduced he figures it would reduce the number of bags having to be opened to about 1 per minute. If the no liquids in the bag ban came into effect that would drop even more. He mentioned some other ideas that were being floated around that he didn’t think would come to be. He mentioned restricting access to the secure area to passengers whose flights were not within 2 hours. Alternatives were prohibiting the printing of the boarding passes prior to 3 hours to departure, and prohibiting the issuance of connecting boarding passes. (He thought these wouldn’t work as the airlines couldn’t handle it, and the passengers would revolt) Another thought was eliminating the sterile area of the airport and screening the passengers at the gates. (TSA doesn’t have the manpower to do it). He also mentioned the talk of allowing private screeners to return under TSA supervision. (He stated that it won’t happen, because the airport insurance companies are basically demanding TSA there if there is an option.) So in summary here is what I managed to glean from this supervisor. 1. Most screeners think the liquid ban is stupid, but will stay in some form or another. 2. A relaxing of the restrictions is likely, but not guaranteed, and will most likely be done in phases. 3. The liquid ban has increased the number of bags checked, and those bags are all not getting the X-Ray and CTX. 4. False alarms/bag searches are causing the system to backlog. Major cause of alarms is liquids in the bag. Conversation on banning all liquids in the checked luggage occurring, and probably will come into existence 5. To further manage the “risk” passengers may be limited to one checked bag. This is some of what he mentioned to me during our close to 30 minute conversation. And just in case you were wondering how I managed to get a supervisor for that long, it is easy when all of the checkpoints are closed, its midnight and the personnel have to be there because there are still flights/passengers hanging around. He seemed to be a decent guy, whose is in grad school studying chemistry/chemical engineering. He joined TSA 3 years ago, because as he put it, it is easy money and better than working at McDonalds. Again as I said this came from a supervisor, and should be treated as rumor. But it could be useful for us to consider what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 You limit people to 1 bag and they're gonna check a biiig bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmace Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 quote]following on the checked baggage side of things, he mentioned that one proposal that TSA is seriously floating is limiting each passenger to one checked bag (no sporting equipment, i.e. skis, bikes, golf clubs etc). I can see it now, no more flights for whistler, banff, and Vail customers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyf Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I flew from SeaTac to Spokane and back two weeks ago. Not even really thinking about it (I was on vacation and away from the news when things went down earlier this month), I brought a carry-on gym bag with my harness, shoes and chalk bag (plus extra chalk) for a quick trip to the crags after work. No problem at all getting through morning security at SeaTac, but they held me up for quite awhile in Spokane. They ran my harness through x-ray three times and asked a bunch of questions about the chalk (which was still liberally pasted all over my hands, to boot). Eventually, they let me through with everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScaredSilly Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 From the OP I assume that the rope was taken at the security check NOT while checking bags. (Please give details - did you ask for a supervisor - did you ask for the written rules prohibiting ropes?) That said, you did have one perhaps two options that the TSA should have given you. 1) Return the item to your vehicle (may not have have been possible if you were dropped off) 2) Return to the baggage check and ask for a box or shipping bag and check the rope. Most airports have bags for childerns car seats not always boxes. You could have easily wrapped the rope in the bag and checked it. And if the rope was lost or damaged then you could have filed a claim for the rope. BTW there are three accepted was of inspecting checked bags, xray, hand, or swab. None are fool proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraken Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 I was just doing a little daydreaming and realized that someone (a hot little brunette vixen for example) could strangle someone with a G-string. In fact, ALL clothes are pretty much potential weapons. I hope TSA will be proactive and prohibit hot brunette vixens from wearing clothes on future flights before this weakness is exploited. Thank God I always fly red eye and never have to worry about hot girls flying on my flights...Luckily I always feel safe and get sat next to some fat old lady with a 'stache. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpine_Tom Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 (edited) following on the checked baggage side of things, he mentioned that one proposal that TSA is seriously floating is limiting each passenger to one checked bag (no sporting equipment, i.e. skis, bikes, golf clubs etc). I can't see that. I can easily see them banning climbing gear, bikes, backpacks, baby seats, strollers, etc, but no one's going to tell people not to fly with their golf clubs and skiis, and keep their job. Could be the first step to a real citizen backlash, though. But geez, what justification did they use for confiscating a climbing rope? A quickdraw looks more like a potential weapon than a rope! (Officer, stop that man! He's got a grigri! Call security!) Edited September 6, 2006 by Alpine_Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 Jens, you might have a winner!!! PI announces the 2006 Stupid Security Competition 21/08/2006 STUPID SECURITY AWARDS =x-347-541996]http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-541996 We've all been there. Standing for ages in a security line at an inconsequential office building only to be given a security pass that a high school student could have faked. Or being forced to produce photo ID for even the most innocent activity. If you thought after Enron that the accountancy profession was bad news, just wait till you hear how terrible the security industry has become. Even before the recent "liquid bomb" scare a whole army of bumbling amateurs has taken it upon themselves to figure out pointless, annoying, intrusive, illusory and just plain stupid measures to "protect" our security. Stupid security has become a global menace. From the airport that this month emptied out a full plane because a passenger was drinking from a lemonade bottle, to the British schools that fingerprint their children to stop the theft of library books, to the airline company that refused to allow passengers to bring books or magazines onto the plane, the world has become infested with bumptious administrators competing to hinder or harass us - and often for no good reason whatever. The sensitive and sensible folk at Privacy International have endured enough of this treatment. So we are running an international competition to discover the world's most pointless, intrusive, stupid and self-serving security measures. The "Stupid Security Awards" aim to highlight the absurdities of the security industry. Privacy International's director, Simon Davies, said his group had taken the initiative because of 'innumerable' security initiatives around the world that had absolutely no genuine security benefit. The awards were first staged in 2003 and attracted over 5,000 nominations. This will be the second competition in the series. "The situation has become ridiculous" said Mr Davies. "Security has become the smokescreen for incompetent and robotic managers the world over". Unworkable security practices and illusory security measures do nothing to help issues of real public concern. They only hinder the public, intrude unnecessary into our private lives and often reduce us to the status of cattle. The airline industry is the most prominent offender, but it is not alone. Consider the UK rail company that banned train-spotters on the grounds of security (e.g. see this article(external). Or the security desk of a US office building that complained because paramedics rushing to attend a heart-attack victim had failed to sign-in. Or the metro company that installed a $20,000 biological weapons/gas detector and placed it openly next to a power plug so terrorists could conveniently unplug the device. Privacy International is calling for nominations to name and shame the worst offenders. The competition closes on October 31st 2006. The award categories are: * Most Egregiously Stupid Award * Most Inexplicably Stupid Award * Most Annoyingly Stupid Award * Most Flagrantly Intrusive Award * Most Stupidly Counter Productive Award The competition will be judged by an international panel of well-known security experts, public policy specialists, privacy advocates and journalists. The competition is open to anyone from any country. Nominations can be sent to stupidsecurity@privacy.org. Details of previous award winners can be found below, or at http://www.privacyinternational.org/ssa2003winners /> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmace Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 But geez, what justification did they use for confiscating a climbing rope? A quickdraw looks more like a potential weapon than a rope Really..I can either tie you up or stand there for days wacking you with 20 gram soft edge object.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.