Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Flying With Camera Gear  (Read 14480 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2010, 08:33:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
This "Security Theater" has to stop, it is getting absolutely intolerable.

I wonder what would happen if a terrorist decides to take a flight, dressed in a smart suit with a bomb hidden in his laptop...
What will they do then? Will they dare to strip-search everybody wearing a suit? Will they forbid laptops in the cabin?

Security can and does scan laptops with chemical detection equipment. The bed guys have become more "sophisticated" than this. As the more obvious loopholes have been plugged, they develop less obvious ones to exploit. Unfortunately, unless (if possible) there comes a political solution to the underlying causes of this terrorism, the "cat and mouse game" will not stop.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2010, 08:52:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
The trouble with this sort of theme is that we all want 'them' to do something to provide 100% guarantees of safety, but only if it doesn't inconvenience us in any way.

The only possible manner of doing this - save lives, perhaps - is to do the politically incorrect thing: provide separate flights/airlines for the separate types of people. After all, as with much of the bullshit about 'victimised' minorities, there is little point in looking for religious terrorists within a clearly non-ethnic group. Of course, you may find one, but the chances are not good. Until the obvious becomes obvious enough to be unavoidable, we all shall suffer.

How tragic that it has become the rôle of the outcast to say such things within the political medium, the rest ignoring it for fear of alienating part of the possible voter base.

Hope this doesn't kill the thread, but I believe it needed saying.

Rob C

Rob, as a bunch of traveling photographers we are looking for ways of being able to carry our stuff safely while being reasonably assured of reaching our destinations intact. No-one in their right mind should expect "100% guarantees of safety" because there is no such thing, and everyone for the better part of three decades now has been tolerating inconvenience in the name of safety. So I don't think your starting premise is on-point. What we are now facing from Transport Canada is a different animal: extreme and irrational procedures which they considered necessary because they didn't have in place the optimal stragegy and resourcing to deal systematically and systemically with a peak danger event, while minimizing massive inconvenience to travelers and the commercial damage which results therefrom. It is in this sense that Ray Maxwell has a point when he says the terrorists are winning.  

As for targeting - that already happens, and the focus of the US Administration since this incident is to find out exactly how their targeting procedures were flawed. Targeting needs to identify really dangerous people regardless of their passports or how they dress. The smarter the targeting, the less inconvenience and the less danger for the rest of us. But smart targeting does not mean segregating people by ethnicity. Even if it were "politically correct", which it isn't, the terrorists would soon work around it.

I see three strands of a solution to the problem we face: (1) political - to deal with root causes, (2) improved intelligence processes and (3) much smarter and better resourced passenger scanning at airports. Once enough additional headway has been made on these three fronts, it may then be possible to carry our stuff into aircraft with relative ease and convenience.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7962



WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2010, 09:38:15 AM »
ReplyReply

And until all three of Mark's strands get adequate attention, I've begun to look more closely at photographic opportunities that are within driving distance of where I live. There's lots to see in New England and the Maritimes. And, so far at least, crossing the U.S./Canada border in an automobile isn't nearly the hassle of any airline flight.

Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
andyptak
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240


« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2010, 09:51:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I think this whole thng has gotten off point. Nobody would argue against security that keeps us all safe. The issue here is that no other country has introduced the "no carry-on" measures that Canada has. This has not been done for security reasons it has been done because security staff are inadequate and stretched too thin already, and we can't afford the economic disaster that would befall us if an attack was launched on the U.S. from Canadian soil. This is about administrative incompetence, not security. You can get in and out of Ben Gurion airport quicker than Pearson and its secured like a fortress.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2010, 09:53:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes
And until all three of Mark's strands get adequate attention, I've begun to look more closely at photographic opportunities that are within driving distance of where I live. There's lots to see in New England and the Maritimes. And, so far at least, crossing the U.S./Canada border in an automobile isn't nearly the hassle of any airline flight.

Eric

Hi Eric, interesting you say that. From here in Toronto, I've been looking into exactly that sort of thing. For example, it seems there is particularly rich and *relatively* under-exploited photographic potential in the provincial and national parks of Newfoundand/Labrador - more of a stretch without flying, but still possible.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2010, 09:59:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: andyptak
I think this whole thng has gotten off point. Nobody would argue against security that keeps us all safe. The issue here is that no other country has introduced the "no carry-on" measures that Canada has. This has not been done for security reasons it has been done because security staff are inadequate and stretched too thin already, and we can't afford the economic disaster that would befall us if an attack was launched on the U.S. from Canadian soil. This is about administrative incompetence, not security. You can get in and out of Ben Gurion airport quicker than Pearson and its secured like a fortress.

It hasn't gotten off-point; and I agree, we have mainly a management problem - see posts 15, 17, 20, 35 and 42.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7962



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2010, 10:52:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Hi Eric, interesting you say that. From here in Toronto, I've been looking into exactly that sort of thing. For example, it seems there is particularly rich and *relatively* under-exploited photographic potential in the provincial and national parks of Newfoundand/Labrador - more of a stretch without flying, but still possible.

Alas, my only three trips to Toronto have been to switch planes on the way to Calgary and the Canadian Rockies (just about my favorite areas on earth, so far). But there is a lot of lovely stuff, though less spectacular, in places like Fundy or Kejimkujik National Parks or several others even just in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI. Much of the drive through Quebec will be boring and bumpy but much less painful than dealing with any airport! And Montreal and Quebec City are both great treasures.


I'm thinking also of crossing the U.S. by train some day, with a few days stops at a couple of places along the way, and then taking a rental car up to Vancouver, where I've never been yet.

There's lots of good stuff to see in this continent!

Eric

Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2010, 11:26:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Eric Myrvaagnes
Much of the drive through Quebec will be boring and bumpy but much less painful than dealing with any airport! And Montreal and Quebec City are both great treasures.
If you refer to the south shore of the St. Lawrence and the area of Hwy 401 west to Ontario, I would agree. However the main section of Quebec north of the Ottawa river and north of the St Lawrence and Gulf of St Lawrence is stunning and under-visited. In particular the Charlevoix and Saguenay/Lac Saint Jean regions north east of Quebec City are superb.

BTW - attempt to get the thread back to topic  

I just flew Delta from Madrid>JFK>Toronto and had no problems or significant delays caused by security. My ThinkTank 'Airport International' roll-on cabin bag carried all video & still equip. and attracted no more attention than normal.   However, weather in Europe was another story...
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2010, 11:33:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Transport Canada still has a "no wheels" policy in place for carry-ons, so at this time, getting back to Canada with it is no problem (in this respect more rational regulation abroad and in the USA), but under present conditions you wouldn't get out with it, unless you leave from Buffalo International.

OK, we can start a new thread on "Transport Canada-proof alternatives for making landscape/cityscape photographs".  
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
andyptak
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240


« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2010, 11:47:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark - I'm in on the new thread. I'm flying out next Monday and still don't know what to do. Written policy about allowing camera bags is one thing, but what happens when I'm standing in the terminal and they give me a hard time and tell me that my bag doesn't conform?
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2010, 11:57:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: andyptak
Mark - I'm in on the new thread. I'm flying out next Monday and still don't know what to do. Written policy about allowing camera bags is one thing, but what happens when I'm standing in the terminal and they give me a hard time and tell me that my bag doesn't conform?

Good question, and why I'm avoiding our airports until the dust settles and the actual implementation of sensible rules appears satisfactory. Anyhow, if one needs to fly, so far it looks as if as long as you carry one bag (plus a laptop in a thin case), no wheels, and is within the weight and size limits, you should be OK, before or after a commotion with either airline or security staff, depending on who wants to be sticky. As for the weight issue, wear a photog vest and be prepared to off-load heavy items into the pockets.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
andyptak
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240


« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2010, 04:03:34 PM »
ReplyReply

The rules state "purpose designed carrying case". I don't carry a camera bag- thief magnets in my mind. I use a canvas weekend bag and don't feel like spending two or three hundred bucks to purchase a camera bag I won't use once this is over. Whether I "conform" or not, is strictly in the eye (and mood) of the beholder. My larger case, still carry-on sized, has wheels which appear to be fprbidden. Either way, I fall between the cracks and will be at the mercy of arbitrary judgement. And we all know how petty that can get at times.

I investigated shipping my gear one way by Fedex ground to Miami, and they wanted more than the cost of my round trip air ticket! Then there's still the issue that it's out of my sight and at the mercy of baggage handlers.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2010, 06:26:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Andy, I noticed that about the rules. I too think it's all still in a very unsettled state with lots of scope for screw-ups at the airport. Completely unsatisfactory.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2010, 02:56:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Looks like things have improved as of today.

"Beginning tomorrow, the 20th of January, passengers flying from Canada to the United States may board their flights with a full size carry on bag, measuring 9″ x 16″ x 22″ (23cm x 40cm x 55cm), or 47 linear inches.
In addition to this full-size carry on bag, an important piece of information for photographers is that you may also board your flight with a laptop-briefcase or camera bag."

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfi...-baggage-again/
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2010, 04:04:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: phila
Looks like things have improved as of today.

"Beginning tomorrow, the 20th of January, passengers flying from Canada to the United States may board their flights with a full size carry on bag, measuring 9″ x 16″ x 22″ (23cm x 40cm x 55cm), or 47 linear inches.In addition to this full-size carry on bag, an important piece of information for photographers is that you may also board your flight with a laptop-briefcase or camera bag."

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfi...-baggage-again/




I may be dumb, but what in hell does that mean? How do you equate a maximum dimension of 22 inches with 47 linear inches? Is it how 22 inches would look if you subjected them to the tender mercies of a rolling pin? It makes no sense at all.

Rob C
Logged

phila
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2010, 04:55:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C





I may be dumb, but what in hell does that mean? How do you equate a maximum dimension of 22 inches with 47 linear inches? Is it how 22 inches would look if you subjected them to the tender mercies of a rolling pin? It makes no sense at all.

Rob C

"Linear inches" in airline speak is the total of the L+D+H dimensions.
Logged

EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 693


WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2010, 05:17:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
I may be dumb, but what in hell does that mean? How do you equate a maximum dimension of 22 inches with 47 linear inches? Is it how 22 inches would look if you subjected them to the tender mercies of a rolling pin? It makes no sense at all.

Rob C

I had to follow several links and dig into Air Canada's web site to find a definition: "The linear dimensions of a piece of baggage are calculated by adding together its height, width and length." (their emphasis). So even a 0.5" x 0.5" x 46" stick should fail into that rule...
Logged

andyptak
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 240


« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2010, 07:33:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Sanity prevails. But we may need a Royal Commission to delve into how common sense crept into this situation.

Cheers.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6931


WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2010, 07:34:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: phila
Looks like things have improved as of today.

"Beginning tomorrow, the 20th of January, passengers flying from Canada to the United States may board their flights with a full size carry on bag, measuring 9″ x 16″ x 22″ (23cm x 40cm x 55cm), or 47 linear inches.
In addition to this full-size carry on bag, an important piece of information for photographers is that you may also board your flight with a laptop-briefcase or camera bag."

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfi...-baggage-again/

This is beginning to sound better, but much depends on implementation. If you read the comments below the article you referenced it is clear that idiotic practices still prevail, hence the uncertainty about how to travel has not been fundamentally mitigated.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4857



« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2010, 07:46:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
This is beginning to sound better, but much depends on implementation. If you read the comments below the article you referenced it is clear that idiotic practices still prevail, hence the uncertainty about how to travel has not been fundamentally mitigated.
Mark,

As you well know anything run by a government, administered by bureaucrats, and operated by undertrained and underpaid staff is bound to be FUBAR. What else is new?  
Michael
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad