TSA and travelling with batteries

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
news:HYGdnRr8kNzlVbjfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> PSsquare wrote:
> > AIJ wrote relative to batteries the following:
> >
> >> Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
> >> 1-2100, etc.
> >
> > What are you talking about? I have no idea what 1-1600 means, for
> > example.
> >
> > PSsquare
>
> He's left with a single 1600 milliamp-hour AA battery from a set of
> four...
>
> Q
>
Oh, now it is clear. This is why I was taught in engineering school to
include the units and use proper English- one 1600 milliamp-hour etc. Well,
if the issue needs explaining on a newsgroup, then it reasons that airport
screeners in a fairly undeveloped country would be totally unaware of the
problem. It has only been in the last two years that airport screeners in
the USA understand film speed.

Thanks,

PSsquare


>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

mAh even... ;-)

Guy

AlJ wrote:
> The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
> Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
> TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
> her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
> matter. This is a fairly new issue.
>
> I agree that i could have taken one set of batteries and put the rest
> in checked baggage. I would have been stuck though if the baggage
> didn't get there. I don't think I could have replaced them anywhere I
> was.
>
> Sorry about the confusion on the 1-1600 MAH, etc information when I
> was talking about sets.
>
> My main issue was the ever changing security rules.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You should be thankful that they confiscated your batteries! It they hadn't
your plane might have been highjacked!!!

KB



"AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109767581.110874.267350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
> cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
> several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
> do anything.
>
> When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
> AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
> batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
> 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
>
> I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
> home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
>
> I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
> Al
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AlJ wrote:

> Batteries not banned. They felt I had too many. Afraid I might hook
> up with the other person with whatever other components might be needed
> to cause problems. Not sure what constitutes too many.


Hi...

Wonder if that number might not be enough to reach
12 volts (with them in series)

Just thinking that 12 volts is the normal operating
voltage of many electronic devices.

Ken

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2 Mar 2005 11:33:50 -0800, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
wrote:

>Eric Miller comments:
>
>$50 in batteries. For what I currently pay for batteries, that would be
>
>about 25-50 batteries. I'd have probably been a little concerned about
>that
>many batteries too.
>
>12 to 20 bucks a set of 4. My camera uses four, each flash unit uses
>four. An extra set for each plus a spare set for contingencies, and
>you're on 16 EXTRA batteries, plus those in the devices. A total of 7
>sets. Confiscate just 3 sets and you're at $45 or more.

Take off your sock, load it up with batteries and you've got a device
that can kill a man with two strikes. TSA are overly worried about
your shoes, but you never have to demonstrate the tensile strength (or
lack of) of your socks.

Still, that can be said of many things they do let you take on-board.

Iv'e done some extensive calculations into this and come to the
conclusion that the TSA overreacts 99.999999991332% of the time, and
in every case where an item has to change hands, they *take* something
from the victim, but never *give* anything to anybody. Given that you
pay their wages, it's employee theft.

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Miller writes:

OK, I don't know where you are, but at $12-20 for four batteries, I'd
guess
that you are paying way too much. Since the original poster seems to be
from
the US, I was addressing what I expect his costs to have been. If
anyone is
paying $20 for a set of four rechargeable batteries in the US, they are

getting ripped off. The most I pay anywhere is $14 for a set of eight,
brand
name (Energizer), 2300 mAh, NIMH batteries

I'm in the U.S. And I can find 2300 mAh NiMH Energizers here for a set
of FOUR for about ten bucks, but for other brands, including Quest and
Sanyo, I expect to pay a bit more. Dropping the cost to my lowest
estimate, $12, still leaves $48 for four sets. You must do a lot of
shopping around for price on batteries. I don't, but, then they are
items that only need replacement every four or five years, usually one
set at a time.

I still can't see the rationale TSA is using. But, then, I haven't been
able to see the rationale they used every since the last time they
screwed up re-packing my luggage and ruined a couple things for me. And
I do hope they enjoyed my last return trip when someone sorted my dirty
underwear into the clean clothing and left it there.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nospam responds:
when travelling and visiting an unfamiliar city (and perhaps not even
in the usa), the typical person probably does not know where to go to
get good deals on batteries there. and even if they did, they might
not want to spend their vacation time driving around trying to find
such a deal (and assuming they rented a car) and missing out on photo
opportunities while doing so.

realistically, if batteries are confiscated, replacing them can easily
be $12-20 per set.

Yes. And I just spent a few minutes checking the Thomas web site.
Cheapest 2100 mAh Energizers are $6.97 in major multiples--for four,
not eight--and you really do need to add shipping to that.

If TSA is going to have asinine rules, and it is, it needs to publicize
those rules so it is possible to follow them. Maybe a reasonable 60 or
90 day time for rules changes. Of course, I'm sure the powers-that-be
see that as giving terrorists warning of measures to be taken, but,
hell, they've got TSA's number already, I'd imagine.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
>Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
>TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
>her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
>matter. This is a fairly new issue.

Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
The TSA is a uniquely US organization.
>
>I agree that i could have taken one set of batteries and put the rest
>in checked baggage. I would have been stuck though if the baggage
>didn't get there. I don't think I could have replaced them anywhere I
>was.
>
>Sorry about the confusion on the 1-1600 MAH, etc information when I was
>talking about sets.
>
>My main issue was the ever changing security rules.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:06:53 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
>>Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
>>TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
>>her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
>>matter. This is a fairly new issue.
>
>Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
>their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
>airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
>The TSA is a uniquely US organization.

Rules are different for U.S. Flag carriers even overseas.
********************************************************

"A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

_Introductions to History of the Reformation_
Jonathan Swift
1667-1745

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <6dde21pifqs26lmh14dnfas7u46l1pu43h@4ax.com>, Big Bill
<bill@pipping.com> wrote:

> On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
> >Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
> >TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
> >her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
> >matter. This is a fairly new issue.
>
> Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
> their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
> airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
> The TSA is a uniquely US organization.

flights bound for the usa need to adhere to the tsa guidelines. so yes,
the tsa does tell them how to run the show.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:

>
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_8_23_2004.pdf

This document says the list is not "all-inclusive". It goes on to say
that "the screener may also determine that an item on the permitted
chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the
security checkpoint." Ergo, the list is operationally useless.

> If batteries were prohibited, wouldn't *all* of them be taken?

They are allowed to make it up as they go along: the regulations
basically say so.

> I bel;ieve this was a case of someone simply wanting some batteries,
> and using the position of being a security agent as a cover for the
> theft.

There are many people who believe this is the basic function of
government.

> As I wrote earlier, it's happened before.

Yeah, well, but it's also "happened before" that someone has posted a
bullshit story on USENET to solicit responses etc. What evidence do we
have in hand to support or reject either hypothesis in this case?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:59:59 -0600, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:06:53 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
>>>Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
>>>TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
>>>her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
>>>matter. This is a fairly new issue.
>>
>>Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
>>their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
>>airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
>>The TSA is a uniquely US organization.
>
>Rules are different for U.S. Flag carriers even overseas.

Understood.
But is the TSA running security in Belize?
Batteries aren't listed in the TSA's list of Permitted-Prohibited
items:
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_8_23_2004.pdf
If batteries were prohibited, wouldn't *all* of them be taken?

I bel;ieve this was a case of someone simply wanting some batteries,
and using the position of being a security agent as a cover for the
theft. As I wrote earlier, it's happened before.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve writes:

so I would assume the concern is only about
batteries shorting out and starting a fire (thus the issue with dive
lights).
Realistically that's extremely unlikely even with a few dozen batteries
unless
they're packed in foil, but the potential consequences of a fire on a
plane are
significant enough to warrant some minor paranoia. Limiting batteries
in carry on to
a couple of dozen spread through a couple of bags is probably a good
strategy.

But totally ignores the possibility of batteries improperly stowed in
the belly of the beast. Might they figure that fire in the baggage hold
from shorted out batteries is less serious than fire in the passenger
compartment?

 

[steve]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> Thanks for the warning as my wife
> mentioned going there recently. How many batteries were you carrying?
> Is there some threshold?

I've seen several reports recently that the airlines are concerned about batteries
being left in dive lights and even regular flashlights, but so far I haven't seen any
problems with batteries, either in checked luggage or carry on. On a trip to
Micronesia a year ago I checked a suitcase with 96 AA and 16 C batteries, which
probably put me in the 99th percentile for how many batteries tourists carry with
them. TSA opened the suitcase, but only rummaged through it. On a trip to Honduras
last January my wife and I each had dive lights with 8AA batteries in them in our
carry on bags, and my camera bag had 12 AA NiMH, plus two batteries for the camera
(L-ion package that's about 2 AA size). We made 4 trips through security checkpoints
(Newark, Honduras, and twice in Houston). The camera bag did get rotated and run back
through the x-ray machine once, but nobody said a word about the batteries or looked
in any of the bags.

Assuming TSA is smart enough to figure that my wife and I could easily pool our
batteries, our itinerary suggests that if there is a threshold it's at least 28 AA
batteries. A couple of people with only a few batteries a piece would easily have
enough for timing devices or detonators, so I would assume the concern is only about
batteries shorting out and starting a fire (thus the issue with dive lights).
Realistically that's extremely unlikely even with a few dozen batteries unless
they're packed in foil, but the potential consequences of a fire on a plane are
significant enough to warrant some minor paranoia. Limiting batteries in carry on to
a couple of dozen spread through a couple of bags is probably a good strategy.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

 

[ALJ]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The cost of batteries isn't and wasn't the issue. I may have over
estimated the cost. Not a huge issue since I wasn't asking for replace
costs. The batteries were purchased over a period of time and I didn't
count how many. Some were old enough to be 1800mah.

Picture yourself going to an island where you couldn't easily replace
your batteries and having half confiscated. That is my issue. If I
go through security with a wine corkscrew, they'll take it. I know
that so I deal with it. Batteries? Who would have thought it?

Still waiting for TSA to respond to me email asking about this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 3 Mar 2005 16:47:29 -0800, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>>
>http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_8_23_2004.pdf
>
>This document says the list is not "all-inclusive". It goes on to say
>that "the screener may also determine that an item on the permitted
>chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the
>security checkpoint." Ergo, the list is operationally useless.
>
>> If batteries were prohibited, wouldn't *all* of them be taken?
>
>They are allowed to make it up as they go along: the regulations
>basically say so.

I can understand, as you say, that hey can ban anything they want to.
But why would they take only a certain number of them, even going so
far as to obviously pick and choose between matched sets?
That makes no sense if it's being done as a safety measure. It would
be all or none.
>
>> I bel;ieve this was a case of someone simply wanting some batteries,
>> and using the position of being a security agent as a cover for the
>> theft.
>
>There are many people who believe this is the basic function of
>government.
>
>> As I wrote earlier, it's happened before.
>
>Yeah, well, but it's also "happened before" that someone has posted a
>bullshit story on USENET to solicit responses etc. What evidence do we
>have in hand to support or reject either hypothesis in this case?

None.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:00:41 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <6dde21pifqs26lmh14dnfas7u46l1pu43h@4ax.com>, Big Bill
><bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
>> >Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
>> >TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
>> >her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
>> >matter. This is a fairly new issue.
>>
>> Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
>> their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
>> airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
>> The TSA is a uniquely US organization.
>
>flights bound for the usa need to adhere to the tsa guidelines. so yes,
>the tsa does tell them how to run the show.

Then why not all the batteries?
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[steve]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charlie Self wrote:

>> Limiting batteries in carry on to a couple of dozen
>> spread through a couple of bags is probably a good strategy.
>
> But totally ignores the possibility of batteries improperly stowed in
> the belly of the beast. Might they figure that fire in the baggage hold
> from shorted out batteries is less serious than fire in the passenger
> compartment?


The discussion at hand was about batteries confiscated from carry on so that's what I
was addressing in the last line, and if there was any confusion I was referring to
passenger strategy to avoid confiscation rather than airline strategy to prevent
fires. My own experience is that the way I packed them, several dozen batteries in
checked luggage didn't result in any problems, and I can't really envision a likely
scenario in which they are a problem. It might be worth noting that there are also
restrictions on how many matches or butane lighters passengers are allowed to carry,
and you aren't supposed to be carrying Bacardi 151 from the duty-free shop. Of course
if there's going to be a fire, I'm guessing there's a better chance of early
discovery and putting it out if it's in the passenger compartment. From much of what
I've seen, though, I suspect the odds are that a fire is more likely to result from
commercial cargo than stuff that passengers bring, whether checked or carry on.

BTW, I've occasionally found your posts a tad confusing when you quote more than a
single paragraph, since the lack of carats makes it unclear where the quote ends.
Might I suggest that you add some carats the old fashioned way,

<< so that the quoted part is distinct? >>

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill writes:

> Then why not all the batteries?

They may be trying to detect batteries rigged as explosive devices.
That would explain breaking up sets. If they randomly sample the
batteries and they are all okay, the rest are probably okay as well.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:13:33 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Big Bill writes:
>
>> Then why not all the batteries?
>
>They may be trying to detect batteries rigged as explosive devices.
>That would explain breaking up sets. If they randomly sample the
>batteries and they are all okay, the rest are probably okay as well.

This wasn't a sampling, it was a taking.
Sampling can be done on the spot, and if it's not done on the spot,
it's too late when results are in.
This was, as I said earlier, a simple case of an airport employee
supplementing income through reselling items in short supply.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sheldon writes:

> You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
> battery?

Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
batteries, though.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:14:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Sheldon writes:
>
>> You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
>> battery?
>
>Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
>batteries, though.

If this were the reason, why are lithium batteries not banned?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

AlJ writes:

> Batteries not banned. They felt I had too many. Afraid I might hook
> up with the other person with whatever other components might be needed
> to cause problems. Not sure what constitutes too many.

There are two potential misuses of lithium AA batteries: (1) lithium
batteries can be used as explosives under the right conditions (although
commercial AA lithiums have safety mechanisms that normally prevent
explosions); and (2) lithium batteries provide a key ingredient used in
illegal methamphetamine labs.

Ordinary (non-lithium) AA batteries should not present any problem, as
far as I know. I suppose someone might worry about connecting them all
together to set off an explosive device or something. I don't know why
TSA would care about meth labs, but these days the government seems to
care about everything.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:35:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:14:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Sheldon writes:
>>
>>> You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
>>> battery?
>>
>>Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
>>batteries, though.
>
>If this were the reason, why are lithium batteries not banned?

Anything can be made to explode with enough C4. A lithium battery on
it's own is barely enough to wound a cat, let-alone bring down an
aircraft. That's not the point here, the guy was simply collecting
batteries - daylight robbery legitimized by the US government's TSA
badge, it's that simple.

We know that the Government never used to do background checks on
airport security personnel, and if even if they do now - it's
meaningless. The average age of a TSA employee is around 15, so they
haven't had a chance to get an adult criminal record yet.

<g>

--
Owamanga!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:14:35 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:35:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:14:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Sheldon writes:
>>>
>>>> You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
>>>> battery?
>>>
>>>Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
>>>batteries, though.
>>
>>If this were the reason, why are lithium batteries not banned?
>
>Anything can be made to explode with enough C4. A lithium battery on
>it's own is barely enough to wound a cat, let-alone bring down an
>aircraft. That's not the point here, the guy was simply collecting
>batteries - daylight robbery legitimized by the US government's TSA
>badge, it's that simple.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, too.
>
>We know that the Government never used to do background checks on
>airport security personnel, and if even if they do now - it's
>meaningless. The average age of a TSA employee is around 15, so they
>haven't had a chance to get an adult criminal record yet.
>
><g>

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"