Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread D. Ryan Spott 
Flight from LaPaz -> LAX -> SEA. I got marked with the SSS of selected death. 

Mexican authorities swiped my carry on and checked it with the explosives 
sniffer. 

LAX customs was fine but then you have to go back through TSA. TSA saw the SSS 
and the next thing you know they were unpacking my bags and checking seams in 
my packed underwear and the underwear I was wearing TWICE!

When they took out my laptop they asked me to turn it on. Nope, batteries are 
dead. When I offered to plug it in to charge it, it was like I offered to light 
a fuse!

90 minutes of complete security theater. Shared swabs between people's bags, 
multiple security people in the close in inspection area eating and wandering. 

At one point they wanted to pat down a Chinese man. The TSA agent was nervous 
and just said the same statement about touching his genitals louder to the 
Chinese man. I offered google translate and the TSA guy was super relieved. He 
said he was clocked by another non-English speaker as he felt him up. (Hell, if 
some guy speaking a foreign language touched me like that without warning I'd 
probably clock him too!)

The US Airlines will probably figure out a way of clearing your laptop to be 
used on board. They already have precheck, clear, special first class lines etc.

Pissed business customers that figure out that video conferencing works just as 
well once you get used to it mean a loss of spectacular revenue to the airline. 
They will fight this tooth and nail. Even Saudi based airlines let their first 
and biz customers use their laptops up until just before takeoff. 

ryan

-- 
D. Ryan Spott | NGC457, llc
broadband | telco | colo | communities
PO Box 1734 Sultan, WA 98294
425-939-0047

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 09:01, Forrest Christian (List Account) 
>  wrote:
> 
> We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I know 
> the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that direction.  I'd 
> prefer we don't go down that path.
> 
> What I'm curious about is this:
> 
> The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell phone 
> being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's limited to a 
> few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded greatly.  Note 
> that this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, but instead that 
> it has to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead of accessible to you 
> through the flight.
> 
> So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The 
> obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the passenger 
> cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so simple to rig 
> nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a potential terrorist 
> from their explosive is going to make a bit of difference. 
> 
> I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that they're 
> implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are affected.   
> Especially since you can apparently carry your larger electronics all of the 
> way to the gate, then have them gate check them to be returned to you airside 
> at your destination.
> 
> Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to eliminate?   
> Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium battery fire 
> in the cargo hold
> 
> -- 
> Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Simon Westlake 
From what I've read, the thinking is that it is harder to trigger a 
bomb in the cargo hold than if you're holding it, even if it is not that 
big of a barrier. Items that go through checked baggage are also 
(allegedly) screened much more thoroughly than carry ons. I think planes 
are also built to withstand a hole in the cargo hold with less of an 
impact on passengers than a hole in the wall next to you.


On 4/25/2017 11:01 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  
I know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that 
direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.


What I'm curious about is this:

The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell 
phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's 
limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get 
expanded greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a 
laptop with you, but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the 
luggage hold instead of accessible to you through the flight.


So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  
The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the 
passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so 
simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a 
potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of 
difference.


I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that 
they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are 
affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger 
electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them 
to be returned to you airside at your destination.


Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to 
eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a 
lithium battery fire in the cargo hold


--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com  | 
http://www.packetflux.com 
 
 





--
Simon Westlake
Email: simon@sonar.software
Phone: (702) 447-1247 US / (780) 900-1180 CA
---
Sonar Software Inc
The future of ISP billing and OSS
https://sonar.software

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Jason McKemie 
They do.

http://www.thepelicanstore.com/progear-luggage-61.aspx

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Guess I gotta find a pelican case if I have to check my laptop.  I wonder
> if they make them with a handle and wheels.
>
> -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:57 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
> On 4/25/17 10:29, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
>>
>> So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?
>>  The perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked,
>> submit to cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided
>> gown for the duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings
>> into a bomb proof cargo hold.
>>
>>
>
> Actually your belongings will follow on a separate cargo-only airplane.
>
> ~Seth
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account) 
yes, they even make ones in exact airline friendly sizes.

they just released a lighter weight but still a strong version of them as
well.

On Apr 25, 2017 12:06 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> Guess I gotta find a pelican case if I have to check my laptop.  I wonder
> if they make them with a handle and wheels.
>
> -Original Message- From: Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:57 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
> On 4/25/17 10:29, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
>>
>> So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?
>>  The perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked,
>> submit to cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided
>> gown for the duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings
>> into a bomb proof cargo hold.
>>
>>
>
> Actually your belongings will follow on a separate cargo-only airplane.
>
> ~Seth
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Chuck McCown 
Guess I gotta find a pelican case if I have to check my laptop.  I wonder if 
they make them with a handle and wheels.


-Original Message- 
From: Seth Mattinen

Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:57 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

On 4/25/17 10:29, Adam Moffett wrote:


So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?
 The perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked,
submit to cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided
gown for the duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings
into a bomb proof cargo hold.




Actually your belongings will follow on a separate cargo-only airplane.

~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Seth Mattinen 

On 4/25/17 10:29, Adam Moffett wrote:


So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?
 The perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked,
submit to cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided
gown for the duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings
into a bomb proof cargo hold.




Actually your belongings will follow on a separate cargo-only airplane.

~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Steve Jones 
Its a rule now, it is what it is. I wonder if stowed devices go into
particular containers, or particular areas designed for minimal impact.
Anybody who runs into an issue now is looking for an issue. I don't fly, so
it wont likely impact me, but it is what it is. I personally would not
check my laptop into baggage anywhere if I were travelling, Id just ship it
independently so its at my destination when I get there. If it were all
that critical, I might take my hard drive in my pocket.

I would prefer if a threat were explosive, or biologic, it be contained to
a cargo area. the end result may end up being the same, an ocean full of
debris and some well fed sharks, but if it resulted in a land able aircraft
then, it would be better to land with most people still having their limbs
and eardrums. I don't know if cargoholds are pressurized or
compartmentalized from the passenger area, I would think they would be.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> I remember when they first installed a magnetometer in the Portland,
> Oregon airport.  It was in the news.  This was probably 1972 or early
> 1973.
>
> I went with my family to pick an exchange student coming in from Equador.
>
> I told my school mates I was gonna take a big hunk of metal through in my
> pocket to see if this thing worked.
> I surmised it would have to be ferrous based to be detected.  I was pretty
> sure I was going to be safe.
>
> I did and it did not chirp.  The metal was a 1 pound ingot of Babbitt.  So
> non magnetic.
>
> *From:* Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:29 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
> Wikipedia has a couple of fun lists:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks
>
> In 1970-1972 hijackings were an almost monthly occurrence.
> January 1973 is when the FAA started requiring security checkpoints.
> There were only 12 US flights hijacked in the 30 years following that.
>
> So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?  The
> perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked, submit to
> cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided gown for the
> duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings into a bomb proof
> cargo hold.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message ------
> From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 4/25/2017 1:04:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
> Went to Cornwall, England, bags went to Tucson.
>
> I realize Cornwall and Tucson sound alike and look alike when printed on
> the luggage tag...
>
> Took more than a few days to get them.
>
> *From:* Andy Trimmell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:01 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
> Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left
> behind like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me cringe.
> “im sorry sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll deliver it
> to your house in 3-5 business days”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
>
> Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about laptop
> batteries with explosives packed inside.  Not an actual device on a plane,
> but someone building it.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.  I feel like someone is always
> going to find a way.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
>
> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
>
> That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious,
> and simple place to hide explosives.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
> I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do
> some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference
> with an X ray machine if you do it right.
>
>
>
> Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power
> and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.
>
>
>
> Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?
>
>
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account)
>
> *Sen

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Jaime Solorza 
Do they charge for this procedure?  I think some would like it.

On Apr 25, 2017 11:29 AM, "Adam Moffett" <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikipedia has a couple of fun lists:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks
>
> In 1970-1972 hijackings were an almost monthly occurrence.
> January 1973 is when the FAA started requiring security checkpoints.
> There were only 12 US flights hijacked in the 30 years following that.
>
> So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?  The
> perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked, submit to
> cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided gown for the
> duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings into a bomb proof
> cargo hold.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: 4/25/2017 1:04:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
> Went to Cornwall, England, bags went to Tucson.
>
> I realize Cornwall and Tucson sound alike and look alike when printed on
> the luggage tag...
>
> Took more than a few days to get them.
>
> *From:* Andy Trimmell
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:01 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
> Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left
> behind like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me cringe.
> “im sorry sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll deliver it
> to your house in 3-5 business days”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
>
> Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about laptop
> batteries with explosives packed inside.  Not an actual device on a plane,
> but someone building it.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.  I feel like someone is always
> going to find a way.
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
>
> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
>
> That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious,
> and simple place to hide explosives.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
> I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do
> some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference
> with an X ray machine if you do it right.
>
>
>
> Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power
> and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.
>
>
>
> Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?
>
>
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account)
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM
>
> *To:* af
>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
>
>
> We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I
> know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that
> direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.
>
>
>
> What I'm curious about is this:
>
>
>
> The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell
> phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's
> limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded
> greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you,
> but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead
> of accessible to you through the flight.
>
>
>
> So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The
> obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the
> passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so
> simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a
> potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of
> difference.
>
>
>
> I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that
> they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are
> affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger
> electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them to
> be returned to you airside at your desti

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Robert Andrews 
My understanding is that they are being quietly rolled in and they are 
doing kevlar-like bags on existing containers...


On 04/25/2017 09:16 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

Are these being flown yet?  Last I heard they were just being developed.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Robert > wrote:

Combine this policy with the newer explosion resistant baggage
containers...


On 4/25/17 9:01 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that
way.  I
know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that
direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.

What I'm curious about is this:

The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a
cell
phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's
limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get
expanded greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a
laptop with you, but instead that it has to be checked so it's
in the
luggage hold instead of accessible to you through the flight.

So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?
The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way
into the
passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device
is so
simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical
separation of a
potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of
difference.

I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way
that
they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are
affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger
electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate
check them
to be returned to you airside at your destination.

Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to
eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a
lithium battery fire in the cargo hold

--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345  | Address: 3577 Countryside
Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com 
> |
http://www.packetflux.com

>
>
>





--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com
 | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Chuck McCown 
I remember when they first installed a magnetometer in the Portland, Oregon 
airport.  It was in the news.  This was probably 1972 or early 1973.  

I went with my family to pick an exchange student coming in from Equador.  

I told my school mates I was gonna take a big hunk of metal through in my 
pocket to see if this thing worked. 
I surmised it would have to be ferrous based to be detected.  I was pretty sure 
I was going to be safe. 
   
I did and it did not chirp.  The metal was a 1 pound ingot of Babbitt.  So non 
magnetic.  

From: Adam Moffett 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

Wikipedia has a couple of fun lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks

In 1970-1972 hijackings were an almost monthly occurrence.
January 1973 is when the FAA started requiring security checkpoints.  There 
were only 12 US flights hijacked in the 30 years following that.

So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?  The 
perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked, submit to cavity 
search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided gown for the duration of 
the flight, and put all of their belongings into a bomb proof cargo hold.



-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 4/25/2017 1:04:56 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

  Went to Cornwall, England, bags went to Tucson.  

  I realize Cornwall and Tucson sound alike and look alike when printed on the 
luggage tag...

  Took more than a few days to get them.  

  From: Andy Trimmell 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:01 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

  Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left behind 
like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me cringe. “im sorry 
sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll deliver it to your house 
in 3-5 business days”

   

   

   

  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
  Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM
  To: af@afmug.com
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

   

  Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about laptop 
batteries with explosives packed inside.  Not an actual device on a plane, but 
someone building it.

   

  I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.  I feel like someone is always going 
to find a way. 

   

   

  -- Original Message --

  From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>

  To: "af" <af@afmug.com>

  Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM

  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

   

That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious, and 
simple place to hide explosives.

 

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do 
some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference with 
an X ray machine if you do it right.  

 

Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power 
and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.  

 

Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?

 

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM

To: af 

Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

 

We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I 
know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that direction.  
I'd prefer we don't go down that path.

 

What I'm curious about is this:

 

The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell phone 
being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's limited to a few 
countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded greatly.  Note that 
this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, but instead that it has 
to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead of accessible to you through 
the flight.

 

So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The 
obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the passenger 
cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so simple to rig 
nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a potential terrorist 
from their explosive is going to make a bit of difference. 

 

I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that 
they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are affected.   
Especially since you can apparently carry your larger electronics all of the 
way to the gate, then have them gate check t

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Adam Moffett 

Wikipedia has a couple of fun lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks

In 1970-1972 hijackings were an almost monthly occurrence.
January 1973 is when the FAA started requiring security checkpoints.  
There were only 12 US flights hijacked in the 30 years following that.


So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop?  
The perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked, 
submit to cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided 
gown for the duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings 
into a bomb proof cargo hold.




-- Original Message --
From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 4/25/2017 1:04:56 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban


Went to Cornwall, England, bags went to Tucson.

I realize Cornwall and Tucson sound alike and look alike when printed 
on the luggage tag...


Took more than a few days to get them.

From:Andy Trimmell
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:01 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left 
behind like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me 
cringe. “im sorry sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll 
deliver it to your house in 3-5 business days”








From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban



Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about 
laptop batteries with explosives packed inside.  Not an actual device 
on a plane, but someone building it.




I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.  I feel like someone is always 
going to find a way.






-- Original Message --

From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>

To: "af" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban



That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty 
obvious, and simple place to hide explosives.




On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> 
wrote:


I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough 
to do some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the 
difference with an X ray machine if you do it right.




Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing 
power and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.




Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?



From: Forrest Christian (List Account)

Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM

To: af

Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban



We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  
I know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that 
direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.




What I'm curious about is this:



The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell 
phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's 
limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get 
expanded greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a 
laptop with you, but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the 
luggage hold instead of accessible to you through the flight.




So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  
The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the 
passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so 
simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a 
potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of 
difference.




I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that 
they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are 
affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger 
electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them 
to be returned to you airside at your destination.




Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to 
eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a 
lithium battery fire in the cargo hold




--

Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com 
<http://www.packetflux.com/>


<http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>  
<http://facebook.com/packetflux>  <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Chuck McCown 
Went to Cornwall, England, bags went to Tucson.  

I realize Cornwall and Tucson sound alike and look alike when printed on the 
luggage tag...

Took more than a few days to get them.  

From: Andy Trimmell 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:01 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left behind 
like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me cringe. “im sorry 
sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll deliver it to your house 
in 3-5 business days”

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

 

Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about laptop 
batteries with explosives packed inside.  Not an actual device on a plane, but 
someone building it.

 

I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.  I feel like someone is always going 
to find a way. 

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>

To: "af" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

 

  That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious, and 
simple place to hide explosives.

   

  On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do 
some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference with 
an X ray machine if you do it right.  

   

  Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power 
and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.  

   

  Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?

   

  From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

  Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM

  To: af 

  Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

   

  We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I know 
the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that direction.  I'd 
prefer we don't go down that path.

   

  What I'm curious about is this:

   

  The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell phone 
being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's limited to a few 
countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded greatly.  Note that 
this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, but instead that it has 
to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead of accessible to you through 
the flight.

   

  So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The 
obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the passenger 
cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so simple to rig 
nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a potential terrorist 
from their explosive is going to make a bit of difference. 

   

  I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that they're 
implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are affected.   
Especially since you can apparently carry your larger electronics all of the 
way to the gate, then have them gate check them to be returned to you airside 
at your destination.

   

  Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to eliminate?   
Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium battery fire in 
the cargo hold

   

  -- 

Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Andy Trimmell 
Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left behind 
like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me cringe. “im sorry 
sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll deliver it to your house 
in 3-5 business days”

 

 

 

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

 

Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about laptop 
batteries with explosives packed inside.  Not an actual device on a plane, but 
someone building it.

 

I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.  I feel like someone is always going 
to find a way. 

 

 

-- Original Message --

From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>

To: "af" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

 

That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious, 
and simple place to hide explosives.

 

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to 
do some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference 
with an X ray machine if you do it right.  

 

Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing 
power and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.  

 

Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?

 

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 

Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM

To: af 

Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

 

We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I 
know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that direction.  
I'd prefer we don't go down that path.

 

What I'm curious about is this:

 

The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell 
phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's limited to 
a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded greatly.  Note 
that this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, but instead that 
it has to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead of accessible to you 
through the flight.

 

So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  
The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the 
passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so simple to 
rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a potential 
terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of difference. 

 

I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that 
they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are affected.   
Especially since you can apparently carry your larger electronics all of the 
way to the gate, then have them gate check them to be returned to you airside 
at your destination.

 

Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to 
eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium 
battery fire in the cargo hold

 

-- 

Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602

forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com <http://www.packetflux.com/> 

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>   <http://facebook.com/packetflux>   
<http://twitter.com/@packetflux> 

 <http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_compose> 
 
<http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_active=e965778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce>
  
<http://ws-stats.appspot.com/t/pixel.png?e=setup_page_outlook_active=e965778f9a351fad7a8a860dffc144ce>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Adam Moffett 
Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about 
laptop batteries with explosives packed inside.  Not an actual device on 
a plane, but someone building it.


I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss.  I feel like someone is always 
going to find a way.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious, 
and simple place to hide explosives.


On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough 
to do some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the 
difference with an X ray machine if you do it right.


Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing 
power and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.


Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?

From:Forrest Christian (List Account)
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM
To:af
Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  
I know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that 
direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.


What I'm curious about is this:

The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell 
phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's 
limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get 
expanded greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a 
laptop with you, but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the 
luggage hold instead of accessible to you through the flight.


So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  
The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the 
passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so 
simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a 
potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of 
difference.


I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that 
they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are 
affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger 
electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them 
to be returned to you airside at your destination.


Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to 
eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a 
lithium battery fire in the cargo hold


--
Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com 
<http://www.packetflux.com/>
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian>  
<http://facebook.com/packetflux>  <http://twitter.com/@packetflux>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Chuck McCown 
I think the hold is much more resistant to explosion.  You never know where 
your where your bag will be, it will be surrounded by other bags that will 
absorb the explosion etc.  In the cabin you can place the device against the 
wall and pretty much ensure a hole in the aircraft.  

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:15 AM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

Yes, anything larger than a cellphone. 

Let's just suppose that there was a device that had been modified to turn it 
into an explosive device.   Does it really matter if it is in the cabin or in 
the hold?   

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do 
some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference with 
an X ray machine if you do it right.  

  Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power 
and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.  

  Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?

  From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM
  To: af 
  Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

  We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I know 
the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that direction.  I'd 
prefer we don't go down that path.

  What I'm curious about is this:

  The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell phone 
being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's limited to a few 
countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded greatly.  Note that 
this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, but instead that it has 
to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead of accessible to you through 
the flight.

  So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The 
obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the passenger 
cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so simple to rig 
nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a potential terrorist 
from their explosive is going to make a bit of difference. 

  I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that they're 
implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are affected.   
Especially since you can apparently carry your larger electronics all of the 
way to the gate, then have them gate check them to be returned to you airside 
at your destination.

  Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to eliminate?   
Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium battery fire in 
the cargo hold

  -- 

Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

   







-- 

  Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

  Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
  forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Are these being flown yet?  Last I heard they were just being developed.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Robert  wrote:

> Combine this policy with the newer explosion resistant baggage
> containers...
>
>
> On 4/25/17 9:01 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
>
>> We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I
>> know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that
>> direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.
>>
>> What I'm curious about is this:
>>
>> The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell
>> phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's
>> limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get
>> expanded greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a
>> laptop with you, but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the
>> luggage hold instead of accessible to you through the flight.
>>
>> So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?
>> The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the
>> passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so
>> simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a
>> potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of
>> difference.
>>
>> I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that
>> they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are
>> affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger
>> electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them
>> to be returned to you airside at your destination.
>>
>> Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to
>> eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a
>> lithium battery fire in the cargo hold
>>
>> --
>> *Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
>> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
>> forre...@imach.com
>>  | http://www.packetflux.com
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>
>>
>>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Mathew Howard 
That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious, and
simple place to hide explosives.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do
> some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference
> with an X ray machine if you do it right.
>
> Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power
> and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.
>
> Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
> We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I
> know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that
> direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.
>
> What I'm curious about is this:
>
> The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell
> phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's
> limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded
> greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you,
> but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead
> of accessible to you through the flight.
>
> So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The
> obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the
> passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so
> simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a
> potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of
> difference.
>
> I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that
> they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are
> affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger
> electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them to
> be returned to you airside at your destination.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to
> eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium
> battery fire in the cargo hold
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Yes, anything larger than a cellphone.

Let's just suppose that there was a device that had been modified to turn
it into an explosive device.   Does it really matter if it is in the cabin
or in the hold?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do
> some damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference
> with an X ray machine if you do it right.
>
> Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power
> and communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.
>
> Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?
>
> *From:* Forrest Christian (List Account)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM
> *To:* af
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban
>
> We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I
> know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that
> direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.
>
> What I'm curious about is this:
>
> The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell
> phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's
> limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded
> greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you,
> but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead
> of accessible to you through the flight.
>
> So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The
> obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the
> passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so
> simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a
> potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of
> difference.
>
> I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that
> they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are
> affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger
> electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them to
> be returned to you airside at your destination.
>
> Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to
> eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium
> battery fire in the cargo hold
>
> --
> *Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
> Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
> forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
>   
>   
>
>


-- 
*Forrest Christian* *CEO**, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.*
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Robert 

Combine this policy with the newer explosion resistant baggage containers...

On 4/25/17 9:01 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I
know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that
direction.  I'd prefer we don't go down that path.

What I'm curious about is this:

The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell
phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's
limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get
expanded greatly.  Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a
laptop with you, but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the
luggage hold instead of accessible to you through the flight.

So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?
The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the
passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so
simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a
potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of
difference.

I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that
they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are
affected.   Especially since you can apparently carry your larger
electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them
to be returned to you airside at your destination.

Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to
eliminate?   Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a
lithium battery fire in the cargo hold

--
*Forrest Christian* /CEO//, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc./
Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
forre...@imach.com
 | http://www.packetflux.com

Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

2017-04-25 Thread Chuck McCown 
I am guessing it is a volumetric thing.  Laptop batts are big enough to do some 
damage if they really are an explosive.  Hard to tell the difference with an X 
ray machine if you do it right.  

Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power and 
communications ability.  It has to be volumetric based.  

Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices?

From: Forrest Christian (List Account) 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM
To: af 
Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban

We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way.  I know 
the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that direction.  I'd 
prefer we don't go down that path.

What I'm curious about is this:

The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell phone 
being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin.  Today it's limited to a few 
countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded greatly.  Note that 
this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, but instead that it has 
to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead of accessible to you through 
the flight.

So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate?  The 
obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the passenger 
cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so simple to rig 
nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a potential terrorist 
from their explosive is going to make a bit of difference. 

I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that they're 
implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are affected.   
Especially since you can apparently carry your larger electronics all of the 
way to the gate, then have them gate check them to be returned to you airside 
at your destination.

Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to eliminate?   
Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium battery fire in 
the cargo hold

-- 

  Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc.

  Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602
  forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com