NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. Will Allow Most Types of Lighters on Planes
New York Times 07/20/2007
Author: Eric Lipton
c. 2007 New York Times Company

WASHINGTON, July 19 — Federal aviation authorities have decided to stop enforcing a two-year-old rule against taking cigarette lighters on airplanes, concluding that it was a waste of time to search for them before passengers boarded.

The ban was imposed at the insistence of Congress after a passenger, Richard Reed, tried to ignite a bomb in his shoe in 2001 on a flight from Paris to Miami.

Lawmakers said that if Mr. Reid had used a lighter, instead of matches, he might have been able to ignite the bomb, but Kip Hawley, assistant secretary for the Transportation Security Administration, said in an interview on Thursday that the ban had done little to improve aviation security because small batteries could be used to set off a bomb.

Matches have never been prohibited on flights.

“Taking lighters away is security theater,” Mr. Hawley said. “It trivializes the security process.”

The policy change, which is to go into effect on Aug. 4, applies to disposable butane lighters, like Bics, and refillable lighters, like Zippos. Torch lighters, which have thin, hotter flames, will continue to be banned.

Security officers have been collecting some 22,000 lighters a day nationwide, slowing down lines at check points. Even so, many smokers had found ways to sneak lighters through checkpoints, often by placing more than one in a carry-on bag. Disposing of the seized lighters has cost about $4 million a year.

By lifting the ban, Mr. Hawley said, security officers could spend more time looking for bombs or bomb parts. “The No. 1 threat for us is someone trying to bring bomb components through the security check point,” he said. “We don’t want anything that distracts concentration from searching for that.”

A provision in the 2007 Homeland Security Department spending bill allowed the security agency to stop enforcing the ban if it determined that “lighters are not a significant threat to civil aviation security.”

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who in 2004 helped lead the effort to ban lighters, has not objected to the change, a spokeswoman said.

A ban on liquids in containers greater than three ounces, which was imposed last summer after the disruption of a plot based in London to blow up planes headed to the United States, will remain in effect, but the security agency will modify its rules related to breast milk. Passengers will be allowed to carry breast milk in quantities greater than three ounces as long as it is declared for inspection at the security checkpoint. Currently, breast milk is allowed only if a passenger is traveling with an infant.

In late 2005, security officials lifted a ban on small scissors, screwdrivers and other small tools, making a similar argument that searching for them was a waste of time.

In the coming months, the agency will install new equipment intended to improve its ability to intercept explosives. The new equipment will include advanced X-ray machines that rapidly examine carry-on bags from many angles, making it easier to identify bomb components, and hand-held devices that can determine whether a liquid might be explosive.

Fifteen liquid scanners are already in use, and two dozen of the advanced X-ray machines will have been tested at checkpoints by this fall.

It is now safe to carry normal lighters on to a plane as searching for them and disposing of them is costing the TSA too much time, money, and effort. However, if your lighter holds more than 3oz of butane, you are going to have to hand it over still.

I fail to see how their argument for not collecting lighters any more because it is a waste of time and money can't apply to liquids. Apparently the average time for a scare to die down and the TSA to pull its head out of its ass is 6 years.

TSA: "Uhh, we arn't scared some one might use a lighter to ignite a bomb any more so we arn't banning them on planes any more."
Reporter: "Couldn't matches have been used in the same way, even though they were never banned?"
TSA: ".... next question."
Reporter: "Why is the ban for liquids greater than 3 oz still in effect? I don't think my bottled water is any more dangerous than a lighter."
TSA: "No more questions."

It is now safe to carry normal lighters on to a plane as searching for them and disposing of them is costing the TSA too much time, money, and effort. However, if your lighter holds more than 3oz of butane, you are going to have to hand it over still.

I fail to see how their argument for not collecting lighters any more because it is a waste of time and money can't apply to liquids. Apparently the average time for a scare to die down and the TSA to pull its head out of its ass is 6 years.

TSA: "Uhh, we arn't scared some one might use a lighter to ignite a bomb any more so we arn't banning them on planes any more."
Reporter: "Couldn't matches have been used in the same way, even though they were never banned?"
TSA: ".... next question."
Reporter: "Why is the ban for liquids greater than 3 oz still in effect? I don't think my bottled water is any more dangerous than a lighter."
TSA: "No more questions."

You always seem so surprised at a bureaucracy.

No bureaucracy has ever made any nation "safe". They're always behind the curve, enforcing crap rules related to events that will no longer occur.

Any half-baked terrorist will come up with a new and different way to attack.

Heck, in the UK, they seem to have moved away from aircraft, and attack the airport, or clubs, with firebombs (that don't work well).

I would bet that terrorists will pick something easier, like a shopping mall or a packed commuter train.

You always seem so surprised at a bureaucracy.

No bureaucracy has ever made any nation "safe". They're always behind the curve, enforcing crap rules related to events that will no longer occur.

Any half-baked terrorist will come up with a new and different way to attack.

Heck, in the UK, they seem to have moved away from aircraft, and attack the airport, or clubs, with firebombs (that don't work well).

I would bet that terrorists will pick something easier, like a shopping mall or a packed commuter train.

I saw an article in the paper yesterday, apparently some organisation has concluded that the terror threat is persistent and changing (or something along those lines). I was amazed that someone from the government had actually realised that they're not stupid enough to try the same thing over and over again.

Also, hopefully they give up on more of this stupid security measures.

I saw an article in the paper yesterday, apparently some organisation has concluded that the terror threat is persistent and changing (or something along those lines). I was amazed that someone from the government had actually realised that they're not stupid enough to try the same thing over and over again.

Also, hopefully they give up on more of this stupid security measures.

There's a military theory about a decision loop.

How quickly you can run your decision loop will radically increase your chance for victory.

It applies to a lot of fields aside from the military, but here's how it applies to the TSA.

The TSA is a big, bloated bureaucracy. It takes them essentially forever to come up with an idea, much less a plan, and when the group is that large, they are at major risk of groupthink.

A terrorist cell is a few people. It can take them seconds to come up with an idea, an hour to come up with a plan, and a few days to execute it.

They can do ANYTHING without the TSA being able to catch up and implement a defense - no matter who runs the TSA.

A terrorist cell is a few people. It can take them seconds to come up with an idea, an hour to come up with a plan, and a few days to execute it.
I object to this because that is the most absurd fucking thing I have ever heard.

I object to this because that is the most absurd fucking thing I have ever heard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

The rest of the world disagrees with you.

And I quote:

The key is to obscure your intentions and make them unpredictable to your opponent while you simultaneously clarify his intentions. That is, operate at a faster tempo to generate rapidly changing conditions that inhibit your opponent from adapting or reacting to those changes and that suppress or destroy his awareness. Thus, a hodgepodge of confusion and disorder occur to cause him to over- or under-react to conditions or activities that appear to be uncertain, ambiguous, or incomprehensible.

The terrorists are doing exactly this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop

The rest of the world disagrees with you.
Really, the rest of the world thinks terrorists can come up with an idea for a working plot in seconds and work out a usable plan in an hour?

We would have terrorist attacks once a week were that the case.

And I quote:



The terrorists are doing exactly this.
You realize I was objecting to your completely ridiculous time scale right?

Really, the rest of the world thinks terrorists can come up with an idea for a working plot in seconds and work out a usable plan in an hour?

We would have terrorist attacks once a week were that the case.

It's mostly a matter of getting up the nerve.

Really, you could buy the gas, the propane tanks, pack them into your car, and do what the last group of idiots did in less than an hour.

You realize I was objecting to your completely ridiculous time scale right?

Like the ridiculous frequency of attacks in Iraq...

They can do ANYTHING without the TSA being able to catch up and implement a defense - no matter who runs the TSA.

Yeah, there isn't really anything they can do. Which is one of the reasons all this security is annoying me. If I'm screwed anyway I'd rather ride the conveyor to the slaughterhouse in comfort.

Like the ridiculous frequency of attacks in Iraq...

Oh I forgot, every attack in Iraq is a terrorist attack.

Also, are we going to take into account the "repeat" factor into your equation or not? I'm pretty sure doing the same thing over and over again would take alot of time out of it.

Interesting. It seems the tip of the airport stupidity iceberg has melted a little - maybe. :p

Oh I forgot, every attack in Iraq is a terrorist attack.

Also, are we going to take into account the "repeat" factor into your equation or not? I'm pretty sure doing the same thing over and over again would take alot of time out of it.

Terrorists do the same thing until it doesn't work. Then they change.

They change if it looks like we're looking for that sort of thing, and have measures in place to raise their risk of failure.

I think the reason it doesn't happen so fast in the UK and US is because there aren't as many dedicated willing-to-die jihadis in the US and UK.

In Iraq, car bombs and IEDs work - they're hard to defeat or detect. So no need to change up. Plus, plenty of jihadis.

I think the reason it doesn't happen so fast in the UK and US is because there aren't as many dedicated willing-to-die jihadis in the US and UK.
Europe has plenty of these problems. The US is just isolated, that is why it is getting its panties in a bunch about terrorist attacks after September 11.

And its also because it takes planning to pull it off in America or Europe.

Europe has plenty of these problems. The US is just isolated, that is why it is getting its panties in a bunch about terrorist attacks after September 11.

And its also because it takes planning to pull it off in America or Europe.

Once you're in Europe or the US, it doesn't take much planning to do something if you're willing to think of a simple idea.

Once you're in Europe or the US, it doesn't take much planning to do something if you're willing to think of a simple idea.
Thinking of a plan is not making a working plan.

A small group can make & change plans much faster than a bloated bureaucracy, but has fewer resources to carry them out. There are always trade-offs. And it probably doesn't take very many people to start getting bogged down in Red Tape.

Interesting. It seems the tip of the airport stupidity iceberg has melted a little - maybe. :p

Nah, remember my story about the turnbuckles... They've just aimed their stupidity in a different direction.

Banning items is a fix that's easy to implement. It's not that thorough, though. To catch miscreants, you need to actually ask them questions, look them in the eye and watch for evasive answers.

The problem is that the ability it takes to evaluate a potential miscreant is something that takes training and experience. That's something that an undereducated GED holder from some third-world country isn't going to be able to achieve.

So we're stuck with foreigners, that barely speak English, taking away our toothpaste, when it's really the turnbuckles that they should be concentrating on.