Ban on Lighters
Apr 14th, 2005, 04:10 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ban on Lighters
Apr 14th, 2005, 06:56 AM
#4
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, let's the address the facts here:
First, it is NOT the TSA that enacted this ban on lighters-it was Congress, and your President, who signed the Intelligence Reform Act Dec. 2004 into law. This Act, among many other things, bans BUTANE lighters. In the interests of efficiency, the TSA (who is charged with implementing these mandatory provisions with respect to aviation security) in order to cut down on confusion, rightfully decided to ban ALL types of lighters.
Now, as to the matches-a pax is currently allowed to take FOUR BOOKS OF MATCHES through the screening checkpoints-FOUR.
This makes no sense, you say? TSA is phasing through changes-thousands of people are going through the checkpoints PER HOUR, and will be screened for lighters-this is going to be difficult enough. Lighters ARE more dangerous, from a security point of view, than matches.
When TSA evaluates current domestic and international threats in the following months following the lighter ban- then it will decide, based on those threats, whether or not to ban match books as well.
First, it is NOT the TSA that enacted this ban on lighters-it was Congress, and your President, who signed the Intelligence Reform Act Dec. 2004 into law. This Act, among many other things, bans BUTANE lighters. In the interests of efficiency, the TSA (who is charged with implementing these mandatory provisions with respect to aviation security) in order to cut down on confusion, rightfully decided to ban ALL types of lighters.
Now, as to the matches-a pax is currently allowed to take FOUR BOOKS OF MATCHES through the screening checkpoints-FOUR.
This makes no sense, you say? TSA is phasing through changes-thousands of people are going through the checkpoints PER HOUR, and will be screened for lighters-this is going to be difficult enough. Lighters ARE more dangerous, from a security point of view, than matches.
When TSA evaluates current domestic and international threats in the following months following the lighter ban- then it will decide, based on those threats, whether or not to ban match books as well.
Apr 14th, 2005, 07:56 AM
#5
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One more thing-the IRTP Act bans lighters on aircraft, therefore, you may NOT put any type of lighters in your checked luggage -all types of lighters are now considered "prohibited items" which are banned on all aircraft, and which, if found on the person, carry-on, or in checked baggage, will be confiscated.
I know that in many international airports, there are signs being put up at the screening checkpoints to advise all travelers inbound to the US to give up the lighters-and I believe Tokyo's Narita Internat'l has asked the concourse vendors to stop selling lighters at the airport.
I know that in many international airports, there are signs being put up at the screening checkpoints to advise all travelers inbound to the US to give up the lighters-and I believe Tokyo's Narita Internat'l has asked the concourse vendors to stop selling lighters at the airport.
Apr 14th, 2005, 10:21 AM
#9
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...yet I'm sure you'll still be able to buy Cartier/Dunhill lighters in duty free, I'm sure a terrorist can stretch to one of those.
All I can say is thank god here in Britain they're allowing scissors and small knives back onboard!
All I can say is thank god here in Britain they're allowing scissors and small knives back onboard!
Apr 14th, 2005, 11:06 AM
#10
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"ARE more dangerous, from a security point of view, than matches."
how do you figure that. They explicitly say that the reason for the ban in the vabin is to prevent terrorists from lighting explosives. It's all the more ridiculous because there a zillion other ways of detonating exp[losive chemically.
how do you figure that. They explicitly say that the reason for the ban in the vabin is to prevent terrorists from lighting explosives. It's all the more ridiculous because there a zillion other ways of detonating exp[losive chemically.
Apr 14th, 2005, 01:19 PM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banning lighters is about as stupid as the strips of yellow tape at the Goat Haunt dock in Glacier NP in 2002.
In years past, one could ride the boat from Waterton in Canada to the end of the lake, get off, hike in the US part of the park, and return on a later boat.
After 9/11 passengers were allowed off the boad, but all they could do was look at the little visitor center and listen so some ranger story.
They official rationalization was that a terrorist could ride the boat, hike 20 miles over Stoney Indian Pass, get in a car, go somewhere, and blow up something.
Like he could not walk the lakeside trail, crawl through the bushes, and hike out the same way he would from the boat dock.
The supposition I suppose was that the terrorist was too lazy to walk down the trail on the side of the lake, but he or she was not too lazy to hike out once off the boat. Go figure.
In years past, one could ride the boat from Waterton in Canada to the end of the lake, get off, hike in the US part of the park, and return on a later boat.
After 9/11 passengers were allowed off the boad, but all they could do was look at the little visitor center and listen so some ranger story.
They official rationalization was that a terrorist could ride the boat, hike 20 miles over Stoney Indian Pass, get in a car, go somewhere, and blow up something.
Like he could not walk the lakeside trail, crawl through the bushes, and hike out the same way he would from the boat dock.
The supposition I suppose was that the terrorist was too lazy to walk down the trail on the side of the lake, but he or she was not too lazy to hike out once off the boat. Go figure.
Apr 14th, 2005, 02:29 PM
#14
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Butane lighters contain about 350 cubic feet of explosive gas. If you took that lighter into the lave, broke it open, filled the space with butane and lit it with a match, it would blow the airplane's tail off.
Apr 14th, 2005, 05:00 PM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Banning ANYTHING that might be questionable is fine with me. Yes, it is inconvenient not be be able to take little fingernail scissors, but hey, you get used to being inconvenienced! Banning lighters doesn't bother me one iota.
Apr 14th, 2005, 08:10 PM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I friend mentioned the other day that at security screening recently at a US aiport they were confiscating knives and tiny little scissors, etc. Then he was seated at a restaurant past the security point eating when he looked around and saw people eating with their steak knives on their trays. Can someone explain why people can't take sharp instruments beyond security screening, but once they get through they can easily lift a steak knife from the restaurant and take it on board the plane?
Apr 14th, 2005, 08:28 PM
#17
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 45,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Patrick, that is a very good question. But for sure there cannot be a good answer. Seems like the airport security gets more ridiculous every day in some ways.
And if lighters are so dangerous, which from Robespierre's post they are, why are they only banning them starting today??
And if lighters are so dangerous, which from Robespierre's post they are, why are they only banning them starting today??
Apr 15th, 2005, 12:39 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My husband was not allowed to take his lighter on a flight from Philadelphia over seven years ago. It was an expensive Dunhill lighter...fortunately I was with him at the airport and could take it home. Even better, he quit smoking three years ago, so it's now a non-issue.
Lighter manufacturer Zippo says sales may drop up to 30% as a result of the ban (Zippo is based in northwestern PA). From today's Morning Call (Allentown, PA):
"...Bill and Liz Dimmich of Slatington, awaiting bags from Florida, also expressed concern about the impact on Zippo. ''I heard a report, which said they may have to lay off people. That's a Pennsylvania company,'' Bill Dimmich said.
Greg Booth, president of Zippo, said the company's sales could be cut as much as 20 percent to 30 percent. ''Travelers often buy Zippo lighters as a remembrance of a great trip or location,'' he said in a release. ''In addition, Zippo collectors often travel around the country attending 'swap meets' and other events frequented by collectors.''
Some women travel with cordless, portable curling irons heated by butane. Are those being confiscated too? And I wonder how many women pack cordless curling irons in their checked luggage.
Lighter manufacturer Zippo says sales may drop up to 30% as a result of the ban (Zippo is based in northwestern PA). From today's Morning Call (Allentown, PA):
"...Bill and Liz Dimmich of Slatington, awaiting bags from Florida, also expressed concern about the impact on Zippo. ''I heard a report, which said they may have to lay off people. That's a Pennsylvania company,'' Bill Dimmich said.
Greg Booth, president of Zippo, said the company's sales could be cut as much as 20 percent to 30 percent. ''Travelers often buy Zippo lighters as a remembrance of a great trip or location,'' he said in a release. ''In addition, Zippo collectors often travel around the country attending 'swap meets' and other events frequented by collectors.''
Some women travel with cordless, portable curling irons heated by butane. Are those being confiscated too? And I wonder how many women pack cordless curling irons in their checked luggage.
Apr 15th, 2005, 04:27 AM
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>..if lighters are so dangerous, ... why are they only banning them starting today??<
They were banned from checked luggage about 30 years ago.
The ban on carryon took effect today. The legislation was signed in Dec, 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
They were banned from checked luggage about 30 years ago.
The ban on carryon took effect today. The legislation was signed in Dec, 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
Apr 15th, 2005, 06:22 AM
#20
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Butane lighters contain about 350 cubic feet of explosive gas>>
That sounds more explosive than it really is... a tablespoonful of gasoline contains a larger (gaseous) volume of "alkanes" (mostly hexane through octane) than that. I am sure many people have experienced the "whoompf" type of "explosion" when someone put some gasoline on a charcoal grill and lit a match. While clearly not a good thing to have on a plane - - and certain to induce major panic and a lot of smoke, I don't really believe that there would be significant impact on anything structural.
Of course, if one passenger can bring one through security, then lots of passengers COULD theoretically put them all together to make a device that is worrisome at the very least, if not "plane-threatening".
I'm not actually against this ban - - the aggravated travels of collectors notwithstanding - - but I think the "350 cubic feet" factoid is a little bit scientifically misleading.
That sounds more explosive than it really is... a tablespoonful of gasoline contains a larger (gaseous) volume of "alkanes" (mostly hexane through octane) than that. I am sure many people have experienced the "whoompf" type of "explosion" when someone put some gasoline on a charcoal grill and lit a match. While clearly not a good thing to have on a plane - - and certain to induce major panic and a lot of smoke, I don't really believe that there would be significant impact on anything structural.
Of course, if one passenger can bring one through security, then lots of passengers COULD theoretically put them all together to make a device that is worrisome at the very least, if not "plane-threatening".
I'm not actually against this ban - - the aggravated travels of collectors notwithstanding - - but I think the "350 cubic feet" factoid is a little bit scientifically misleading.
