Ban Of Liquids On Flights

[PhilHarries]

I've just read all the stuff about MP3 players not affecting the aircraft systems because there's no hard evidence. Well what hard evidence do you want? Is a crashed 747 and 300+ dead people hard enough? Jeez, if you can't do without you precious music for tenty minutes or so you are one sad case.

As for the liquids and gels the ruling used to cover all flights emanating from the UK and USA but now is becoming worldwide. So you can't take you toiletries in your carry on. Is putting them in you check in baggage such a hardship? The only people it really affects are those requiring medications in flight and those travelling with small babies. For these people fitting their needs in the plastic bag should be no problem. If I'm travelling with carry on only I just take no liquid soaps, gels or toothpast. I can then buy them once checked in and through security or wait untill I get to my destination. On return, the stuff I haven't used I ditch. Simple. If you are so worried about cleaning your teeth mid flight then buy a small tube of paste, or just brush - most dentists say the brushing is more important than the paste contrary to what the adverts say.

[Shrubbery]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Which part of my answer didn't you understand sir?

Not a case of not understanding.

Just a case of waiting for a simple "yes" you are withdrawing your statement or "no" you are not.

I clarified my answer for you several times already. There is no need to withdraw anything. I stated CLEARLY that electronics cannot do anything to harm an aircraft in flight. I base my conclusion on the fact that there is no evidence to support the theory that they do cause harm. Which part are you unable to grasp here?

The part I don't grasp is where in post 35 you say electronic items do not affect the plane in any way.

In post 52 you say "it's that I know electronics do nothing to modern aircraft during take-off. Remember, I work there, it's my job to know this".

Post 54 you say "Electronics MAY interfere but there is not evidence to support this"

Post 70 you say "In my mind I truly believe that they do not harm aircraft in any way"

You have gone from saying they do not affect aircraft, to, they may, then it's your belief.

[TRIPxCORE]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Which part of my answer didn't you understand sir?

Not a case of not understanding.

Just a case of waiting for a simple "yes" you are withdrawing your statement or "no" you are not.

I clarified my answer for you several times already. There is no need to withdraw anything. I stated CLEARLY that electronics cannot do anything to harm an aircraft in flight. I base my conclusion on the fact that there is no evidence to support the theory that they do cause harm. Which part are you unable to grasp here?

The part I don't grasp is where in post 35 you say electronic items do not affect the plane in any way.

In post 52 you say "it's that I know electronics do nothing to modern aircraft during take-off. Remember, I work there, it's my job to know this".

Post 54 you say "Electronics MAY interfere but there is not evidence to support this"

Post 70 you say "In my mind I truly believe that they do not harm aircraft in any way"

You have gone from saying they do not affect aircraft, to, they may, then it's your belief.

If a person were to ask me, I would say that electronics do nothing to harm aircraft in any way.

The airlines and so-called experts are the ones that say electronics MAY harm aircraft. That is their position, not mine.

[Shrubbery]

Obviously, getting a straight answer to a question is not going to happen.

So I think I will go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Which part of my answer didn't you understand sir?

Not a case of not understanding.

Just a case of waiting for a simple "yes" you are withdrawing your statement or "no" you are not.

I clarified my answer for you several times already. There is no need to withdraw anything. I stated CLEARLY that electronics cannot do anything to harm an aircraft in flight. I base my conclusion on the fact that there is no evidence to support the theory that they do cause harm. Which part are you unable to grasp here?

The part I don't grasp is where in post 35 you say electronic items do not affect the plane in any way.

In post 52 you say "it's that I know electronics do nothing to modern aircraft during take-off. Remember, I work there, it's my job to know this".

Post 54 you say "Electronics MAY interfere but there is not evidence to support this"

Post 70 you say "In my mind I truly believe that they do not harm aircraft in any way"

You have gone from saying they do not affect aircraft, to, they may, then it's your belief.

If a person were to ask me, I would say that electronics do nothing to harm aircraft in any way.

The airlines and so-called experts are the ones that say electronics MAY harm aircraft. That is their position, not mine.

So what about your statement in post 52. "it's that I know electronics do nothing to modern aircraft during take-off. Remember, I work there, it's my job to know this".

[bacwy1]

Just last month there was a report in the news from the plane manufactures that the electronics do not do any harm or affect the planes electronics and avionics at all. In the same report the engineers also said that there is a very, very small percentage of them affecting the planes systems. The airlines came out and said that it is for safety and the convienence of the passengers. But in the same way this thread shows and proves what I said before about some people feeling that the rules apply to others and not them.

For lucifer it is not American propoganda it is just facts and truth. If anything I do agree with the racial profiling of muslims, but not by color but by name because any one can be a muslim. The facts are that it is not that hard to pack your liquids in your check in and to have the prescriptions for your medicines with you. The rest of the things like drinks the airlines will supply for you, the ones who have to do more are the flight attendants because they have to serve more drinks.

And for trip, you are right there are so many ways to take down a plane. That is why when I did work at TSA I used to bring up many things to the management that we should not allow. To give and example is tools, people dont need them on a plane so why allow them on?

For me it was all about making the risks as less as possible and to treat all people the same no matter the sex or the age. The reason for that is people use babies, children, the elderly, and there status as a female to try and get away with things. I have seen hundreds of instances both in person and in the news to say that you do have to treat all the same now a days.

It is true that security at airports is horrible and uneven. I have flown a lot myself and have seen that. For me I look online or call the airlines to get the info I need to make my life easier. I know that some people that work at the airports are not in a good mood but than I always see the way they get treated and think about my time there and know that it is an accumulated affect of dealing with people thinking that they should be exempt from the rules and laws.

To give a great example I had passengers come through, a couple, one a surgeon and one a shrink, so about 15 years of college between them, I took out a big bottle of water from there bag and told them that they could not take liquids on the plane, their response, " Its not a liquid, it is water."

So just take the time to look online or call the airline or airport to see what the requirements are and make your life easier, and others also.

[onzestan]

Just last month there was a report in the news from the plane manufactures that the electronics do not do any harm or affect the planes electronics and avionics at all. In the same report the engineers also said that there is a very, very small percentage of them affecting the planes systems. The airlines came out and said that it is for safety and the convienence of the passengers. But in the same way this thread shows and proves what I said before about some people feeling that the rules apply to others and not them.

For lucifer it is not American propoganda it is just facts and truth. If anything I do agree with the racial profiling of muslims, but not by color but by name because any one can be a muslim. The facts are that it is not that hard to pack your liquids in your check in and to have the prescriptions for your medicines with you. The rest of the things like drinks the airlines will supply for you, the ones who have to do more are the flight attendants because they have to serve more drinks.

And for trip, you are right there are so many ways to take down a plane. That is why when I did work at TSA I used to bring up many things to the management that we should not allow. To give and example is tools, people dont need them on a plane so why allow them on?

For me it was all about making the risks as less as possible and to treat all people the same no matter the sex or the age. The reason for that is people use babies, children, the elderly, and there status as a female to try and get away with things. I have seen hundreds of instances both in person and in the news to say that you do have to treat all the same now a days.

It is true that security at airports is horrible and uneven. I have flown a lot myself and have seen that. For me I look online or call the airlines to get the info I need to make my life easier. I know that some people that work at the airports are not in a good mood but than I always see the way they get treated and think about my time there and know that it is an accumulated affect of dealing with people thinking that they should be exempt from the rules and laws.

To give a great example I had passengers come through, a couple, one a surgeon and one a shrink, so about 15 years of college between them, I took out a big bottle of water from there bag and told them that they could not take liquids on the plane, their response, " Its not a liquid, it is water."

So just take the time to look online or call the airline or airport to see what the requirements are and make your life easier, and others also.

Amen to that, well done

regards

onzestan

[Shrubbery]

Despite what many people think. Airlines do actually have passengers and crews safety in mind.

Though they have to keep their shareholders happy. Perhaps they may take advantage of the liquid restrictions, and start charging for drinks.

At the end of the day, I believe it's better to be safe than sorry. I can live with the liquid restrictions. I can also live without an MP3 player/laptop etc for half an hour or so, though I think some people can't.

[hill16]

"If anything I do agree with the racial profiling of muslims, but not by color but by name because any one can be a muslim.

For me it was all about making the risks as less as possible and to treat all people the same no matter the sex or the age. The reason for that is people use babies, children, the elderly, and there status as a female to try and get away with things. I have seen hundreds of instances both in person and in the news to say that you do have to treat all the same now a days."

Is it me or is this person contradicting themselves in these two statements? And as for the first one...let's break out the SS uniforms and the Muslim equivalent of the Star of David and reopen the concentration camps. You are a Nazi my friend and not a very clever one either.

And the Nazi bit applies to TripXCore too for his advocacy of racial profiling.

[backflip]

If the terrorist profile was random: men/women, old/young, Christian/not, Semite/not, profiling would be useless. But, the terrorists are not from random backgrounds. Their ethnicity falls in a rather small profile, and profiling is efficient. Too, your label of "Nazi" is nonsense. With your breadth of knowledge of what constitutes a Nazi, what did someone post that would lead you to believe that they are, in fact, a Nazi? You'll claim that anyone, anywhere that uses a "profile" for any purpose, is a Nazi - and that's ridiculous.

[onzestan]

If the terrorist profile was random: men/women, old/young, Christian/not, Semite/not, profiling would be useless. But, the terrorists are not from random backgrounds. Their ethnicity falls in a rather small profile, and profiling is efficient. Too, your label of "Nazi" is nonsense. With your breadth of knowledge of what constitutes a Nazi, what did someone post that would lead you to believe that they are, in fact, a Nazi? You'll claim that anyone, anywhere that uses a "profile" for any purpose, is a Nazi - and that's ridiculous.

Agreed, however these - people??? - are having more and more success at recruting locals in Great Britain, Belgium, Netherlands etc.

Frightening!

I have no qualm with any sort of safety procedure, may it be ridiculous to some, and insulting to others.

There will always be persons that grumble over anything that infringes on what they perceive as their by God given rights.

And let's face it, anyone that refuses consideration towards fellow passengers and/or crew is an idiot, and should be kicked of the aircraft and blacklisted.

I cringe at the realization that my life might depend on them.

My opinion

Stan

[hill16]

If the terrorist profile was random: men/women, old/young, Christian/not, Semite/not, profiling would be useless. But, the terrorists are not from random backgrounds. Their ethnicity falls in a rather small profile, and profiling is efficient. Too, your label of "Nazi" is nonsense. With your breadth of knowledge of what constitutes a Nazi, what did someone post that would lead you to believe that they are, in fact, a Nazi? You'll claim that anyone, anywhere that uses a "profile" for any purpose, is a Nazi - and that's ridiculous.

Ok. Fair point. Let me revise what I said a little bit. I'll claim that anyone who uses racial profiling as it has been used to identify a "possible" terrorist is acting like a Nazi and that's my right to say so. You think what you like.