Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ken - I understand your frustrations and sympathize - but as much as they are a total pain in the butt, I want them to remain in place. I want someone carrying syringes to have to prove they are medical equipment in the original packaging. I want someone to have to prove that their "diabetic cookies" are just that and not plastique. And I want the security people to check my zip lock bag containing 70 rolls of "film," to say nothing of going through my camera case with equipment on different levels. I don't know if doing this will prevent another 9/11, but I know that NOT doing it will guarantee one. (And, yes, I KNOW there will be another deadly terrorists disaster... because Dick Chaney told me so!) ;-) B. D. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Wilcox <klw.51@comcast.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Cc: Peter Klein <pklein@2alpha.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 8:50 AM Subject: [Leica] Re: Peter goes abroad, returns to tell about it! > Peter, > > An interesting story. I, for one, do not feel any safer for the > Draconian procedures and civil liberty violations being undertaken in > the US and elsewhere. > > As a photographer with serious health problems I would not even try > to fly anymore. Medications all must be in original packaging. (I buy > large quantities that would be onerous to carry along.) I am > diabetic and must bring testing equipment and syringes along. I also > must take along a large electronic piece of equipment, a dialysis > machine and supplies of liquid dialyte. Any special food that I need > to bring I MUST PROVE are actually foods. > > All the foolish and useless restrictions simply make air travel for > me, and those like me, impossibly difficult. > > Ken Wilcox > > At 9:52 PM -0700 5/20/02, Peter Klein wrote: > >I'm back, having unsubscribed for a couple of weeks while traveling > >in Switzerland and Provence. Film is at the processor, should be > >back in a couple of days, so I may scan a pic or two this week, > >obligations permitting. > > > >First off, I would like to thank Nathan Wajsman for meeting Katya > >and me and taking us on a delightful walking tour of Zurich. It's > >always great to meet other LUGgers, and Nathan was a delightful > >guide and conversationalist. > > > >Second, let me add a couple of data points to the airport X-ray > >arena. As I've always done in recent years, I took all my film out > >of the plastic canisters and put it in zip-lock plastic bags. > > > >* Seattle-Tacoma International: My request for a hand inspection of > >my film was politely honored after I noted that X-ray exposure is > >cumulative, and I would be going through several airports. They not > >only looked at my film, but swabbed the outside of one or two > >canisters with a chemical test. My film was checked both departing > >Seattle, and after clearing Customs on my return. Yes, they X-ray > >the hand baggage when you leave the International arrival area. > >International arrivals are already within the secure area of the > >airport (and some go on to connections). Plus, they want to look > >for the dreaded fresh fruit they wish to keep out of the U.S. > > > >* Geneva: I asked for a hand scan, it was curtly refused. When I > >gave my "cumulative" speil, the woman asked her supervisor, who said > >(without even looking at me) it would be fine and I had to let her > >scan it. So I did. The fact that I asked in French did me no good. > > > >* Amsterdam: Again I asked for a hand scan, again it was refused. > >This time the woman at the scanner was very polite and apologetic, > >and said that she was sorry, but it was policy. When I arrived > >there from Seattle, there was no X-ray to transfer to my Geneva > >flight. Arriving from Geneva to go to Seattle, there was a fairly > >heavy-duty security check, including interviews, hand luggage X-ray > >and the occasional pat-down and "remove-yer-shoes please." > > > >There seems to be a case of "ISO inflation" going around airports. > >Last February, the Sea-Tac people said that ISO 1000 film would be > >fine, but all it took was one roll of 800 film among my mostly 400 > >rolls to get a hand inspection at both Sea-Tac and Los Angeles > >(LAX). This time, I was told that up to 1600 film would be > >perfectly safe. I'm not sure if someone has done some testing or > >that they've simply upped the numbers to cut down the number of hand > >inspection requests. > > > >I'm not upset about this. My goal was simply to minimize the X-ray > >exposure, just in case. If I didn't have a good lab here in > >Seattle, I might have taken my chances with on-site film purchase > >and processing. But for the moment, I followed Ted Grant's rules: > >Ask politely for a hand inspection, and if they say no, let 'em > >X-ray and don't worry. > > > >More to come... > >--Peter > > > >-- > >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > -- > _____________________ > Ken Wilcox > klw.51 at comcast.net > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html