Carrying photographic equipment on airplanes
warren montgomery
clearing out that pocket knife and other suspicious camping/hiking gear, I'm
wondering what I'll be able to get on a plane next time. Anyone out there
found out yet? If so you might do some other folks a service by posting
what of your gear you can bring on the plane with you given new security
rules, and what you have to do to protect the rest of it.
--
Warren Montgomery wamont...@att.net
Jack Milchanowski
I am a pilot with Delta Air Lines and fly out of the DFW base. As of today,
there are no further restrictions on carry on with Delta. Two carry on bags
are allowed. As you mentioned--no knives, scissors etc. They do need to
meet the size requirements and only two are allowed.
I have found myself as frustrated as others when traveling to photo shoots.
I also find myself, now, in a position that if a passenger on an aircraft
that I am flying gives a flight attendant any argument about their carry on
baggage that they will be taken off my aircraft. We don't have time to deal
with petty things when it becomes life and death.
It has amazed me, on one hand, what people want to carry on to an airplane.
It also has made me mad when a flight attendant says "no more roller boards"
allowed on board. They do this when the overhead compartments get full. If
people would only listen and actually put one of their carry on bags under
the seat in front of them there would be room. As you know people speed,
run red lights, take exits crossing from the passing lane in front of
people. Why?
My suggestion, as it always has been, is to have two legal carry on bags
with you. I would also wear a photo vest. I would make sure---without any
doubt that one of your bags will go under the seat in front of you---do not
get a bulkhead seat. I carry a 600 f4 in a Kinesis Bag. Around the back of
the lens I pack socks, shirts, some film. I also carry on my back a Nature
Trekker. I have never had a problem being "allowed" on by an over zealous
flight attendant. Both bags will fit under a seat or any overhead including
the Regional Jets of many of the U.S. commuters. I also have a Photo
Trekker. It is legal and I use it when I don't take the 600 mm lens. The
smaller Nature Trekker attracts less flight attendant attention.
If you have a "roller board" suitcase and want to ensure that you get on
with it----get a seat in first class, or get a seat past seat 25-you will be
boarded first, do not get a bulkhead seat, get a small enough roller board
that you can fit under any airline seat--that is the only argument you will
have with a flight attendant-show her it will fit.
Otherwise pack it well and ship it or check it.
Unfortunately I have seen for over 20 years how the baggage handlers handle
the bags. I would never pack my 600 in a duffle and surround it with
clothes as I have read many do. The only way I would pack it would end up
requiring it to be sent air freight and that at the moment is stopped as is
mail.
I intend to drive to a lot more of my destinations. I will then have all my
equipment with me.
These are just some thoughts. I know them to be true at this time.
Tomorrow, who knows?
Regards and God Bless America
Jack
--
Jack Milchanowski
8601 Hidden Meadow Dr
Ft Worth, TX 76179-3023
817.236.8720
tris...@peoplepc.com
"warren montgomery" <wamont...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:vyNp7.519$3d2....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Richard Stum / Kinesis
have a convenient case to use in the field. We (here at
Kinesis) have solved that problem by designing a long lens case that
breaks down flat so it can be also checked (flat w/o the
lens inside) and then reassemled on the other end. See
http://www.KinesisGear.com/l.html#l525 for more details.
Also visit this page for links and specs on airline carry-on
regulations for various airlines.
http://www.KinesisGear.com/survey.html
Richard Stum
Kinesis Photo Gear
warren montgomery
I had plenty of opportunity to watch the battle of the carry on bins. Your
tips are right on target. On Business I always travelled with a thin laptop
bag and a soft sided carryon, both of which could be squashed under the seat
on most planes (except those with those clunky electronics boxes under the
seats). On photo trips I'd carry one small backpack stuffed with the bigger
lenses with the Tripod strapped by the side, and perhaps a second small
photo bag for cameras, film, and smaller lenses. Actually the piece of
photo gear I'm worried most about is my tripod. A Bogen 3001, which is
hardly a monster, but it's long enough that it is difficult to pack in
checked luggage, and the one time I did a plastic leg release handle was
broken, in spite of the fact that the tripod was well padded with clothing
in the middle of a suitcase. Since then I've been carrying it on board, but
always surprised nobody at security gave me a hassle over it. I would think
it would be dificult for the X-ray to detect anything inside 3 layers of
aluminum tubing. I'll probably ask around at the airport before I next want
to bring it. I agree driving is best, but I don't think I'll be driving to
Alaska, Hawaii, or Austrailia
--
Warren Montgomery wamont...@att.net
Stan
a large hub. He has mirrored the sentiments of Jack. He suggested not carrying
ANY object that resembles a knive (including razors and even repair kits that
have srew drivers). No canned air! He was unclear about tripods, but suggested
sending them onto checked luggage. Take film out of boxes and carry them in
baggies ( something I've done for yers anyway). On a positive note he said that
getting camera equipment hand checked probably wouldn't be a problem! It appars
that common sense might be the answer. But one can never tell during times as
these.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Duncan Douglas
film.
Duncan Douglas
dun...@optonline.net
el...@no.spam
Duncan Douglas <dun...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Further to this post is to emphasize using CLEAR baggies for the hand inspected
>film.
What about for Fuji Quickloads?
Joanne Cohen
terrific info, and then I almost died from acute altitude sickness!) Two
comments apropos to recent events: I wore my photo vest, and had three
knives on me, a small curved utility knife on keychain, a swiss army inside
photo vest, and a 4 inch buckknife in my carry on.
However, Warren, they made me unpack my carryon because the head on my
Bogen 3001 (or the tripod itself) alerted security. I had the thing wrapped
in my clothes, with two pairs of panties oh-so-carefully wrapped around the
grip-handle head, which I had detached to fit in the carry-on with all my
other camera gear. I am ashamed now that I was inconvenienced at the time
(not to mention embarassed because THEY unpacked my bag in front of
everyone, but I think this is the way it will be from now on....). Next
time the knives stay home or get checked, and the panties go under the
plane!
I travelled through Europe while in college, for 4 months with one
rucksack - so I know how to pack gear efficiently!
Be safe, God Bless America
Joanne
"warren montgomery" <wamont...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:HB2q7.1680$3d2.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Liz
When we were leaving Salt Lake City in July on an internal flight for the
first part of our journey home, we went through security as usual before
getting to the departure lounge. My husband went off to look for somewhere
he could smoke, and found the easiest way was to go outside. It was only
when he got out that he realised that this shouldn't have been possible. In
fact, I didn't believe he'd been outside - he had to take me.
Then I saw all the people with bunches of balloons and bouquets in the
departure lounge. I was pretty surprised they were going onto the plane,
then someone told me they were 'waiting for their missionaries to come home'
off a plane from Brazil. They had just come into the departure lounge 'off
the street'. I was totally horrified. On the Glasgow-London shuttle, no-one
gets through security to meet you or see you off and there is no other
access to the departure lounge. You certainly can't 'go out for a smoke'.
I was so shocked, I phoned my sister as soon as I returned and she said it
was exactly the same in Boston.
Has this been tightened up? There's not a lot of point in pulling your
manicure scissors out of your hold baggage if someone 'off the street'
can come in and pass you just about anything, then you just have to get
past the girl who takes your boarding card.
I'm booked to go to Atlanta in three weeks, but I'm watching events *very*
carefully before making a final decision.
Liz
--
Website: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/lizleyden
Kenya & Tanzania safaris, Seychelles & India
Image manipulation and some basic computer calligraphy.
Stan
carry on" policy in effect. Everything gets checked. Even laptops. That should
make us feel better (not). Also, besides the machine guns and dogs, you won't be
able to take finger nail clippers either (not that I do, I thing it's crazy).
Remember that every hijacker got on the plane the same way as every paying
passenger. By BEING a paying passenger. I'm not saying some security isn't
necessary, I think that acts of irrationality should be counteracted with very
rational thoughts. As a person who has flown in and out of war zones I don't
believe we are acting rationally.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Don Marcotte
that US airports allow non-ticketed people into the arival and
departure lounges. We Canadians lost that capability many years ago.
With repect to carry on luggage, I will not use an airline that
forbids carry-on luggage. There is no way that I'm going to put
expensive camera equipment and my notebook PC into any airlines
baggage handling system. Furthermore, the powerful X-ray machines
used to scan luggage will likely affect photographic film.
Such a policy will cost the airlines some business. Not only that,
vacation destinations will suffer as a consequence. Places such as
Florida will have to speak out against such a policy.
Don
Jaan Peets
airline industry. I travel a lot on business, and on a four hour flight, try
to be productive. If carry on were banned, then I would lose an additional
day of work each time I travelled. The loss of productivity, and the
discomfort and even danger of travelling without your carryon (i.e.
important medications) would basically shift the equation for me: the cost
of business travel is astronomical anyway, and I would likely give up a good
portion of my travel in favour of video and teleconferencing, etc. As far
as camera gear being checked, forget it - remember that apart from rampant
theft, frequent damage and routine loss or misrouting of your baggage, for
which the airline will pay a piddly few hundred dollars, they now blast
your luggage with super powerful X-ray scanners. So you end up in Hawaii,
with your luggage astray, and you are supposed to drop into a photo shop and
pick up a new large format system, four lenses, and all the other
paraphernalia, AND your 4X5 or 8X10 film. Yeah, right.
There is a lot of irrationality right now, and unfortunately, when
authorities do things like ensuring your security by asking even more
questions as you check in, or tacking away paperclips, it really signifies
that they haven't got a clue how to proceed. There have been suggestions
that the knives used were in fact planted by ground staff. There is NO
perfect preventive measure. Never will be. But significant improvements can
be made in securing flight crew from the passengers with a decent door, new
training for staff, and so on. El Al has continued to fly despite being a
prime target for decades.
Nonetheless, I'm not planning any major expeditions right now - fall is
here, and there is a lot to do within driving distance.
What a sad time.
JP
"Stan" <vis...@mc.net> wrote in message news:3BB144EB...@mc.net...
Stephen Ratzlaff
Video or teleconferencing would sure give a big boost to the telco operators
right now and they sure need it right now. I work on the mobile side so it
wouldn't do much for us, but the telcos sure could us a boost.
I agree completely with what you stated. I think maybe it's time for the
airlines and airports to step up and do the right thing as far as security is
concerned. This includes taking complete responsibility for theft or damage.
Frankly, they've gotten away with paying cents on the dollar for claims for far
too long. If someone (national guard maybe ???) supervised them, maybe the theft
rate would decrease exponentially. Especially, if there were some new tough
legislation forcing prosecution and imprisonment for theft.
Like I said in my previous post, the airlines and airports want their cake and
to eat it too. After seeing the 60 Minutes or Dateline segment about a lady who
struggled with the airline for over a year trying to get compensation for lost
luggage this brings to mind the following scenario.
Airline/Airport: "Sir, no you can't carry that expensive computer on board."
Sir: "Will you guarantee it won't be stolen or broken."
Airline/Airport: "No we can't guarantee it won't be stolen or broken by one of
our personnel."
Sir: "Will you then replace, in a timely manner, the item if it is
stolen/damaged while in your care."
Airline/Airport: "Well ... maybe, but only up to a couple of hundred dollars.
Timely ... hmm ..."
Sir: "But I paid $4000.00"
Airline/Airport: "Sir, you didn't let me finish. Only a couple of hundred
dollars after filing multiple claims which take months, sometimes almost a year
to process. Even then we'll treat you like you were trying to scam us and stall
you as long as it takes for you to give up in disgust or for you to spend even
more time and money via judication."
Sir: "Huh?"
Airline/Airport: "Well, sir ... you can't really expect us to take
responsibility for the actions of ALL the people we employ now can you."
Sir: "What?"
Airline/Airport: "Are you going to fly the friendly skies with us today or not?"
Needless to say, I didn't like flying before, with deregulation and all it
brought. Now I won't fly at all. I think the airlines now will be safer than
ever before. But I think the hassles to the consumer will be even greater. Now,
if the airlines want to promote consumer confidence and limit carry-ons or
eliminate them altogether for safety sake, they should step up and cover all
losses the consumer faces. I wouldn't have a problem stowing my gear in the hold
if I knew they were responsible for theft and damage.
I'll step off my soapbox now. :>}
Regards
SR
Ken Martin
inspected, but no unreasonable problems. Make sure that you allow enough
time for a complete inspection of you carry on.
Ken Martin
"warren montgomery" <wamont...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:vyNp7.519$3d2....@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Lisa Horton
lost/stolen luggage, say within 30 days at most, I think the
theft/loss problem would end fairly quickly:)
Lisa
Terry Austin
>If the airlines were legally required to pay out the actual value of
>lost/stolen luggage, say within 30 days at most, I think the
>theft/loss problem would end fairly quickly:)
If they and the cops would make an honest effort to prosecute the thieves,
it would, too.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com>
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
If you don't use both your left brain and right brain,
you've basically just got half a brain.
-John Rudd
Lisa Horton
Terry Austin wrote:
>
> Lisa Horton <Li...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>
> >If the airlines were legally required to pay out the actual value of
> >lost/stolen luggage, say within 30 days at most, I think the
> >theft/loss problem would end fairly quickly:)
>
> If they and the cops would make an honest effort to prosecute the thieves,
> it would, too.
> >
>
True. If the airlines had to pay for the actual value of all lost
luggage, they'd not only make an effort to prosecute the thieves,
they'd be making BIG efforts to deter and catch them as well. Absent
a financial or legal imperative to do otherwise, there's no reason
from their point of view to change and good reason (cost) not to.
Lisa
Stephen Ratzlaff
But consider this, something I consider even more important, if the
airline/airport personnel have time to rummage through your luggage without
being caught, what else can they be doing which is MORE harmful than stealing.
This is the part which worries me even more. I haven't heard of anything being
done about this. I think the first good step is for the airlines/airports to be
held fully responsible (legally) so that they have no choice to take full
responsibility for lost/damaged luggage (forcing security to watch personnel
anywhere in the loop, from counter personnel, to baggage handlers, to pilots and
flight crew.) I don't think you can leave the fox in the hen house to do this
either. The security personnel must not work for either the airlines/airports
but must be a federally approved 3rd party with no vested interest in the
airlines/airports.
Regards
SR
Terry Austin
I suspect your idea would be the most efficient and cost effective way to
get to the real problem, which is airlines not caring. There are other way,
too, though.
Terry Austin
<6003162F6F1349F3.3FCF7C6D...@lp.airnews.net>
X-Agent-Group: rec.photo.technique.nature
X-Agent-Format: 1 1 0 0 0 630000 0 0 1 0 "*" 0
X-Intro: "Stephen Ratzlaff <ratz...@ticnet.com> wrote:\n"
Stephen Ratzlaff <ratz...@ticnet.com> wrote:
>I agree with what both of you have stated.
>
>But consider this, something I consider even more important, if the
>airline/airport personnel have time to rummage through your luggage without
>being caught, what else can they be doing which is MORE harmful than stealing.
>
>This is the part which worries me even more. I haven't heard of anything being
>done about this. I think the first good step is for the airlines/airports to be
>held fully responsible (legally) so that they have no choice to take full
>responsibility for lost/damaged luggage (forcing security to watch personnel
>anywhere in the loop, from counter personnel, to baggage handlers, to pilots and
>flight crew.) I don't think you can leave the fox in the hen house to do this
>either. The security personnel must not work for either the airlines/airports
>but must be a federally approved 3rd party with no vested interest in the
>airlines/airports.
>
At the moment, it looks like all airport security will be federal cops as
soon as it can be done. This should produce some improvement.
B.Server
wrote:
>If the airlines were legally required to pay out the actual value of
>lost/stolen luggage, say within 30 days at most, I think the
>theft/loss problem would end fairly quickly:)
>
>Lisa
>
Or they would send the tab to Congress who seem to be inclined to bail
them out for any number of their problems.