Lighters to be Allowed on Airliners Again

[moose135]

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/sop/index.shtm

New Policies for Lighters and Breast Milk

In an effort to concentrate resources on detecting explosive threats, TSA will no longer ban common lighters in carry-on luggage starting August 4, 2007. Torch lighters remain banned in carry-ons.

Lifting the lighter ban is consistent with TSA's risk-based approach to aviation security. First and foremost, lighters no longer pose a significant threat. Freeing security officers up from fishing for 22,000 lighters every day (the current number surrendered daily across the country) enables them to focus more on finding explosives, using behavior recognition, conducting random screening procedures and other measures that increase complexity in the system, deterring terrorists. The U.S. is the only country in the world to ban lighters – all other nations, including Israel and the U.K., do not.

TSA is also modifying the rules associated with carrying breast milk through security checkpoints. Mothers flying with, and now without, their child will be permitted to bring breast milk in quantities greater than three ounces as long as it is declared for inspection at the security checkpoint. Breast milk is in the same category as liquid medications. Now, a mother flying without her child will be able to bring breast milk through the checkpoint, provided it is declared prior to screening.

According to a graphic on the linked page, TSA screeners confiscated 11.6 million lighters in 2006. This item in their FAQ did make me laugh:

Q. Does your lighter need to be in a baggie since it contains liquid?
A. No. TSA's common-sense approach harmonizes with worldwide standards for lighters.

I always thought TSA and common sense was a contradiction in terms :D

[PhilDernerJr]

Just tonight I saw a TSA agent holding up a handful of lighters and yelling to the long line waiting, "Don't think you'll get past me with one of these! Don't bother trying to come through with them!" Sadly, he wasn't joking around.

[hiss srq]

Just tonight I saw a TSA agent holding up a handful of lighters and yelling to the long line waiting, "Don't think you'll get past me with one of these! Don't bother trying to come through with them!" Sadly, he wasn't joking around.

Now that is sad and funny all at once.

[emshighway]

Where was that Phil?

This comes down to money, we are spending a ton to get rid of the lighters.

[PhilDernerJr]

JFK T4 Conc B.

[T-Bird76]

Where was that Phil?

This comes down to money, we are spending a ton to get rid of the lighters.

So am I now to believe that lighters still present a risk but since they are costing a ton to dispose of the TSA is allowing them back? One can perceive this as putting security aside over cost. Its also raises question as to the validity of the liquid ban, if lighters were such a threat and now they aren't for whatever reason can't the same be said for liquids? Whatever the reason I'm sure Zippo is jumping for joy, they can once again sell their lighters in duty free shops all around the country.

[PhilDernerJr]

I think something that allows for more effort to concentrate on finding the explosive material (such as a liquid) instead of banning very common triggers (a cigarette lighter) makes sense actually.

[T-Bird76]

I think something that allows for more effort to concentrate on finding the explosive material (such as a liquid) instead of banning very common triggers (a cigarette lighter) makes sense actually.

Phil that wasn't the reason given as to the lift in the ban, the reason given was cost. So it makes perfect sense to assume that if costs increase in other arenas of security the TSA and or DHS may soften those rules as well. The liquid ban is a farce to as I've got water and gels through the X-ray device on my last few trips, twice was by accident as I forget they were in my carry on the third time I just could have cared less knowing they would have missed it couldn't be bothered to remove it and I was right. I'm finding that the TSA overlooks allot during peak bank times at airports. Coming back from Seattle three weeks ago the lines at SEA were almost out the door but they were spitting things out of the Xray devices like a factory producing whatever, it was basically "ok let go, get going, next, get going, next."

[USAF Pilot 07]

Here's what I don't get about the whole liquid ban to begin with, and why I think it's pointless...

If a terrorist wants to bring some sort of liquid explosive on-board or the like, but is only limited to 3oz and say needs 50oz to create a successful detonation, what would prevent him or her from having 17 of his or her friends, book tickets on flights going different places, all carrying 3oz of this explosive liquid through security. Once past security, the friends can rendezvous one or two at a time, each time passing off the liquid, until the main man is left with just over 50oz of liquid explosives...

This could easily be accomplished at an airport like say.... Atlanta, where hundreds of thousands of people pass through there on some days...

So what is this 3oz liquid allowance really preventing???

[hiss srq]

Feaseability is the issue with that idea though it could very well be done. I think the liquids ban needs to go away too because I am tired of spending money in every damn city I travel to on the planet at the airport for a flipping 24 hour stay for pleasure.

[emshighway]

How about you go over to flyertalk.com to bash the TSA. Us locals don't make the policy, we are mandated to follow it though. The argument "well you can change it" isn't valid. I would like to keep my job.

I was as shocked as anyone about the reversal in policy as it goes for lighters. What was explained to us was the officers time would be better spent looking for explosives than lighters. The cost of containing the Haz Mat and removal is high which I am sure is a big factor. Also companies like Zippo have been lobbying and there is more of a chance an electronic ignition would be used as opposed to a flame. The higher intensity torch lighters will still be banned.

The risk of 17 people performing what was described is less than one or two people. Cutting down the amount of liquids was a risk based decision.

No use trying to argue with me because I have my own personal opinions of all this. I'll give you the company line, try to answer legit questions and joke with you. If you want to proclaim your opposition I really don't care. Like I said we are mandated to enforce regulations whether we like them or not.

Sorry Phil, if what you explained happen at one of my airports I could address it but JFK is it's own animal and I have enough of my own fun to deal with.

[mirrodie]

How about we not bash but be allowed to discuss the TSA right here?

So as of now, lighters are perfectly fine to use on an aircraft, but the TSA agent can take my bottle of Poland Spring, a major threat.:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Hold on while I step outside and beat myself senseless.

emshighway, I admire how you stick up for your employer. But the whole think is insane and AL Jazeeza TV probably loves laughing at these safety rules.

And before you even think of typing, just sit back and say this aloud to yourself:

"We can allow lighters (through security) on board the aircraft, but we cannot allow bottles of water through security."

And try to justify to yourself, not even me, that it makes sense.

[PhilDernerJr]

I have to say, guys, that though some of the security procedures that are in place might seem a little strange, I always read criticism, yet I never see recommendations for CHANGE, or for what SHOULD be implemented.

There was a threat where people were going to use liquid explosive to detonate multiple aircraft. So they made rules that have to do with liquids. Should they have done nothing? What more can be done? The rule might seem silly, but even if it makes it just a little more difficult to carry out an attack, or to add an extra level of screening, then I'm for it.

And yes, Mario, a bottle of Poland Spring can be modified to sneak in a dangerous chemical.

One guy tried to light a fuse on his shoe that had explosives in it. So they banned lighters. Makes sense to me. What SHOULD they have done?

I'm not trying to defend the TSA. But it's impossible to make our airline system 100% free from the threat of terrorism doesn't mean you sit on your butt and do NOTHING.

Again, I see what I honeslty classify as whining constantly (not jsut here, but everywhere), but see no contribution towards positive change in improving airport/aircraft security in the present environment.

[emshighway]

There is information of bottles which contain compartments that can hold explosives and/or chemicals which mixed can cause an explosive reaction.

Here are some links of what I am describing:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ye ... xico1.html

http://www.victoriacollege.edu/policeac ... rtment.pdf

http://www.efindoutthetruth.com/diversion_safes.htm

Lighters can only hold a very small amount of fuel. Bottles can hold a lot more.

So now why should the TSA take your bottle of water? Do we know you? Do we know what is really in the bottle?

OK, so the majority of people flying are trustworthy. So should we take a chance and allow all or just some bottles when there is the possibility there may be something that can take a plane down. Do you want to be the one who decides what can go and what can't? Do you want that responsibility or it easier to say well, a quart size baggie with liquids in it is a reasonable risk?

Before I go further everyone please understand that I am posting my own views and am not "officially" representing any government agency here. I posted a comment about cost and TBird jumped on it as official.

In my personal opinion there is no reason to have lighters and/or matches inside a cabin you can't smoke in. But I'm not a smoker so...

I have seen a lot of intelligence which scares me. I got called in to work in the middle of the night when the British plot was discovered. Many of us shook our heads when the policy was given to us. I may not agree with the decision to ban liquids but it is part of my job to enforce the regulations of the US Government and I shall do it no matter what my opinion is.

There is new technology coming out which will scan liquids without even opening them. Should they alarm then they would be opened for further testing. Hopefully this will ease the present problem.

[mirrodie]

And yes, Mario, a bottle of Poland Spring can be modified to sneak in a dangerous chemical.

but see no contribution towards positive change in improving airport/aircraft security in the present environment.

A dangerous chemical such as...lighter fluid? touche ;)

OK, I just read emshgwys post and links and I can see the point to a degree. UNfortunately these are all knee jerk reactions. The shoe bomber prompted removing all shoes prior to flight and on lighters on planes, the London Bombings prompted no bottles of water past security. These are all knee jerk to a degree.

God forbid the future holds a plot to smuggle crap onto a plane using tampons, or a pair of glasses, I cringe at what the next level of 'security' we'll see.


emshighway, Is there at least a department working within your ranks that is working towards thinking ahead of plots and towards implementing the best technology now? At least that would be reassuring to the public.


(BTW, I an not bashing the TSA. Recent flights through JFK, BOS, SFO, SEA, SMF and DFW did show some repectable TSA employees with the few usual imbeciles thrown in. There still lies a bit of inconsistency between airports. Hopefully the enemy will not see these as easily as I have.)