According to what I've read on the FAA website, you're not allowed to carry any blades and you're presumed guilty. Period. Okay, so what ARE we allowed to carry that might be remotely useful yet won't get us shot by security? Logically, anything could be used as a weapon, including loose change or a ballpoint pen. I don't know what is "legit" anymore.<br><br>

>>so what ARE we allowed to carry that might be remotely useful yet won't get us shot by security?<<<br><br>For the moment at least, nothing. Local reports are that people are having all combs, lighters, nail files and knitting needles confiscated. Some say the security folks aren't happy until they find something they can take- anything.<br><br>I doubt there's much sense talking about this until the dust settles. Obviously, if they make it too onerous, people will quit flying nearly so much (I just turned down an opportunity to talk about a contract on the other coast)- but then, if they have government money coming, they may not care.<br><br><br>

I wonder if something like a Minimag flashlight (2 AA batteries) would be allowed. I haven't read that flashlights are contraband, but these could be used as a kubotan weapon (which would be the point of taking it along). Without a knife, pepper spray, etc. and with the threat of terrorism, I'd like to have at least something like a minimag flashlight.<br><br>

News this morning said LAX is confiscating manicure sets, knives, aerosol sprays, water guns, disposable razors, knitting needles, nail files.<br>My suggestion is that if you want it, pack it in your packed bags. It is ridiculous, IMHO, that anyone's survival will be adversely affected by a pen knife.<br><br>Jeffery S. Anderson, M.D.<br><br>

I still find it ironic that we were just discussing knives on planes a few weeks ago. I recall discussions on what may be too threatening to security personnel and risk confiscation. Then hijackers on at least four different flights board planes with box cutters. Box cutters??? How the hell did they let them through?<br><br>Anyway, the new age of air travel is upon us. Not only do we have to contend with the fear of having a carry on item that might be construed as a weapon, but there are new nuances in fear that we never had to deal with in the past. <br><br>First, what do you do if you’re on a plane that’s hijacked? Do you sit passively and wait it out? Or do you rise up and take action against the hijackers? <br><br>Second, yesterday a pair of F-16s “escorted” an American Airlines flight back to O’Hare after it experienced radio problems and lost contract with controllers. I would presume that under the right circumstances, such as a confirmed hijacking headed towards a major metropolitan area (where most suitable airports for landing are located), the pilots might be given orders to shoot.<br><br>That though sort of puts an edge onto the first scenario, what do you, as a passenger, do in the event of a hijacking?<br><br>I personally have no problem with the knife/blade restrictions as long as passengers are treated fairly and not as guilty criminals. I suspect that will happen once the smoke clears. I also think there should be no problem with knives packed in checked in luggage. I can’t think of a scenario where they would present a threat. The only way hijackers could gain access to the luggage would be if they controlled the [plane already using some other threat or force.<br><br>I also do not condone mass hysteria or vigilantes in the air. Obviously, the passengers on flight 93 knew of the three previous crashes. Plus the plane’s crew was killed or dying and clearly not in control of the aircraft. So they had little choice but to take action. But those are a very unique set of circumstances that may never occur again. <br><br>The Transportation Secretary has worked quickly with the different agencies, both civilian and governmental, to institute new security guidelines as well as operational procedures, evidenced by the quick coordination between the air traffic controllers, FAA and NORAD yesterday in the American Airlines flight I mentioned. But what hasn’t happened, as far as I can tell, is effective communications to passengers on what to expect (other than long lines and hand searches). Air travelers need to know how the nation’s airways are being managed, not just at the gate, but once the planes are airborne as well. Otherwise there may be accidental incidents in the sky.<br><br>**** Off soap box ****<br><br><br>Willie Vannerson<br>McHenry, IL

Such a response should be expected, given how security at different airports was caught with their pants down. The natural reaction for anyone who is caught unawares is to act hyper-vigilant for a while to prove they're wide awake.<br><br>

>>I also do not condone mass hysteria or vigilantes in the air. Obviously, the passengers on flight 93 knew of the three previous crashes. Plus the plane’s crew was killed or dying and clearly not in control of the aircraft. So they had little choice but to take action. But those are a very unique set of circumstances that may never occur again.<<<br><br>With all respect, and the sincere hope that discussion remains measured and civil, I couldn't disagree more.<br><br>Flight 93 may or may not have been unique in that the passengers knew what the cost of inaction was likely to be- but now we all know, today and forever more. The stakes can never again be assumed to be only the lives aboard the plane, and we can never again act as though they might be.<br><br>IMHO, every capable adult boarding a flight, whether Sky Marshall, crew, or passenger, must now know, deep in their heart, that if the plane is successfully hijacked, they MUST stop it at ANY cost to themselves or to all aboard. I will NOT go to my death accompanied by thousands of innocents who died because I would not act, or did not know "for sure" that such an act was planned. The passengers and crew on the other 3 flights had the excuse that nothing like this had been seen before, they could not know what was coming. We, the living, will never have that excuse again.<br><br>These inhuman animals were able, with certainty, to commandeer 4 airplanes at once, with box-cutter or "utility" knives probably having a blade under an inch long, simply because they could count on, with the exact same degree of certainty, being better armed than any decent person on the plane- and that is purely because our approach to "security" is to disarm the innocent. In that respect, the airplanes have become a microcosm of our society.<br><br>So now, we're confiscating and throwing away granny's knitting needles. It won't help a bit. Next time the "weapon" might be a dacron cord, or a vial of water pretending to be nitroglycerin, or a dowel sharpened in a pencil sharpener, or just bare-handed killing skills. All that the hijackers require is that the victims be unable to resist- and we're doing our very, very best to insure that. <br><br>Sky Marshalls are an excellent idea. Arming pilots is a good idea. Is it such a leap to think that arming everyone might be? Personally, I'd be a lot more relaxed in the air if they handed out knives to passengers upon boarding as the gas stations used to hand out steak knives as a premium. I like those odds a lot better than what we face now.<br><br>I would never advise anyone to break the law, on this forum or elsewhere- but our society is almost unique in that we can (still, if barely) change the law, and to do that we have to change our thinking.<br><br>If we continue to self-enforce a society of helpless, defenseless, ideal victims just waiting, begging to be victimized, then we have no right to complain when someone does just that. And they will, in as many venues and places as we continue to make ourselves helpless. <br><br>Acknowledging that is not "mass hysteria", confiscating knitting needles is.<br><br><br>

>>>With all respect, and the sincere hope that discussion remains measured and civil, I couldn't disagree more.<<<<br><br>Don't worry. There will be no flames from me if we disagree.<br><br><br>>>>IMHO, every capable adult boarding a flight, whether Sky Marshall, crew, or passenger, must now know, deep in their heart, that if the plane is successfully hijacked, they MUST stop it at ANY cost to themselves or to all aboard. <<<<br><br>The risk is that all hijackings are not destined for suicide missions. And a passenger revolt may actually put the aircraft and passengers in more danger than inaction.<br><br>I think a clear distinction in last week's scenarios was that the aircrews lost control of the aircraft and the hijackers were flying them. It's highly unlikely that a commercial pilot would willingly (a) crash the plane or (b) direct a plane into a populated structure.<br><br>Anarchy on an aircraft at 35,000 feet is not desirable. Imagine that you are in such a situation and have determined that patience was the most prudent coarse of action. Then suddenly, another passenger decides it's time to act. Neither scenario gives me comfort.<br><br>Hopefully, none of us will ever have to make such judgements.<br><br>Willie Vannerson<br>McHenry, IL

>>Don't worry. There will be no flames from me if we disagree.<<<br><br>Thanks. I hope everyone here is capable of the same.<br><br>>>The risk is that all hijackings are not destined for suicide missions. And a passenger revolt may actually put the aircraft and passengers in more danger than inaction.<<<br><br>That is very true, and it’s now completely irrelevant. Again, on 9/11 the stakes were raised by a hundred times or more. We simply have to quit thinking of the aircraft, passengers and crew as paramount. We’ve seen the results of those thought patterns, well intentioned as they may have been. Time to throw them out and move on.<br><br>>>I think a clear distinction in last week's scenarios was that the aircrews lost control of the aircraft and the hijackers were flying them. It's highly unlikely that a commercial pilot would willingly (a) crash the plane or (b) direct a plane into a populated structure.<<<br><br>Absolutely agree- that’s the point. We can never again allow hijackers to retain control of a plane.<br><br>>>Anarchy on an aircraft at 35,000 feet is not desirable.<<<br><br>Loaded word. 200 years ago, any thought of a self-ruled country without an absolute sovereign was “anarchy”. These PC days, the word is invoked whenever someone advocates any power in the hands of the people, the implicit assumption being that ordinary people cannot be wise enough to handle it- but that’s exactly what the generations who made this country great believed in, and acted on. Ordinary, decent people will behave civilly under good circumstances, and come through, again and again, in the worst circumstances. That is not anarchy.<br><br>>> Imagine that you are in such a situation and have determined that patience was the most prudent coarse of action.<<<br><br>If I were the pilot, and I “determined” that, then I would be wrong. To listen to the pilots, they know that very well now. Once control of the situation is lost, the pilot and crew can be killed at convenience, and control of the plane taken at any time. The hijackers do not have to announce their intentions in any way, and, having made that mistake once, probably won’t again.<br><br>>>Hopefully, none of us will ever have to make such judgements.<<<br><br>Amen. <br>But, as with any preparation, the time to think about it is before it happens. Isn’t that what this forum is about?<br><br><br>

But just imagine if you were the hijacker, acting alone or in a small group, and you could count on determined resistance from every able-bodied adult on the airplane. Maybe 60 to 160 individuals bravely intent to foil your intentions with everything they could muster. Your job just got harder by several orders of magnitude. Maybe impossible.<br><br>I agree with Presumedlost. In the new reality, we are all targets of the jihad, so if the day comes when a particular individual gets dragged into this new form of combat, he or she must be willing to answer the call of duty by resisting. And that resistance will be meaningful if we band together and use our numbers to our advantage. <br><br>