TSA and travelling with batteries

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
do anything.

When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.

I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.

I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
Al
66 answers Last reply
More about travelling batteries
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    AlJ wrote:
    > I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    > cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    > several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    > do anything.
    >
    > When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    > AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    > batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >
    > I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    > home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >
    > I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
    > Al
    >

    When one travels to countries where tech is decidely low, one often
    encounters such strange things. Thanks for the warning as my wife
    mentioned going there recently. How many batteries were you carrying?
    Is there some threshold?

    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
    Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
    TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
    her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
    matter. This is a fairly new issue.

    I agree that i could have taken one set of batteries and put the rest
    in checked baggage. I would have been stuck though if the baggage
    didn't get there. I don't think I could have replaced them anywhere I
    was.

    Sorry about the confusion on the 1-1600 MAH, etc information when I was
    talking about sets.

    My main issue was the ever changing security rules.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    If batteries are banned, why did they only take half of them? Why not all,
    assuming they want to be safe? I'll bet you will find them for sale in the
    airport gift shop.

    It sounds like the list of banned items are different for each country, and
    why can you check them in your luggage yet not carry them on the plane?
    What are you going to do? Stab somebody with a battery.

    You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
    battery? This is getting nuts.


    "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1109767581.110874.267350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    > cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    > several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    > do anything.
    >
    > When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    > AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    > batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >
    > I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    > home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >
    > I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
    > Al
    >
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Batteries not banned. They felt I had too many. Afraid I might hook
    up with the other person with whatever other components might be needed
    to cause problems. Not sure what constitutes too many.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    The check was done at the security checkpoint. They scanned and
    searched my carry-on baggage. Indeed was TSA trained folks. They
    control security of flights coming into the states. Not a bad idea
    all-in-all.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    I just emailed TSA asking for an explanation. I couldn't find anything
    on their web site. I'll post the response here.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Dozens of trips to Central America, Europe and around US and always have
    several AA battery packs in carry on -- for MP3 player, cameras, etc. as
    well as proprietary and extra capacity laptop batteries (I tend not to
    put anything I think essential in checked baggage) and have never had a
    raised eyebrow, except for some bemused TSA people admiring my
    collection of gadgets.

    Your experience is instructive, however, and I will certainly keep it in
    mind when flying out of one of those places. I can think of some
    countries where your batteries might be confiscated and put in the
    scanner's pocket.


    AlJ wrote:
    > I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    > cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    > several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    > do anything.
    >
    > When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    > AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    > batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >
    > I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    > home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >
    > I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
    > Al
    >
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Eric Miller wrote:

    > $50 in batteries. For what I currently pay for batteries, that would
    be
    > about 25-50 batteries. I'd have probably been a little concerned
    about that
    > many batteries too.

    The "security" person was probably thinking (for a change!): "Hmmmm
    .... which one of the ~25 is the simulant made of semtex? Let's see, I
    can sit here for 15 minutes taking smears from each one, or I can just
    seize the lot and send this kook home."

    Even stranger is that Belize is not some sort of third-world hell-hole
    where people are eating dirt and money has yet to be invented. Why
    take more than a few batteries? What more you need can be bought just
    about anywhere. Americans can be very strange people sometimes...
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Eric Miller comments:

    $50 in batteries. For what I currently pay for batteries, that would be

    about 25-50 batteries. I'd have probably been a little concerned about
    that
    many batteries too.

    12 to 20 bucks a set of 4. My camera uses four, each flash unit uses
    four. An extra set for each plus a spare set for contingencies, and
    you're on 16 EXTRA batteries, plus those in the devices. A total of 7
    sets. Confiscate just 3 sets and you're at $45 or more.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Charlie Self wrote:

    > 12 to 20 bucks a set of 4. My camera uses four, each flash unit uses
    > four. An extra set for each plus a spare set for contingencies, and
    > you're on 16 EXTRA batteries, plus those in the devices. A total of 7
    > sets. Confiscate just 3 sets and you're at $45 or more.

    Standard alkalines make a perfectly fine "contingency" for a flash.
    Also, a flash and camera will almost never need simultaneous battery
    change. Does one really need "contingency" sets for each piece of
    equipment? Wouldn't one to cover them all?

    All moot though: from what I can tell (googling around etc), there is
    an excellent chance you can buy NiMH's in Belmopan if necessary (ie, if
    one lost them in luggage). It's not like oodles of tourists and their
    quirky needs are a foreign concept in Belize.

    Now if one was visiting (say) North Korea or Libya -- both reported to
    be a nice places, but for the bizarre heads of state -- packing large
    numbers of batteries might be warranted.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1109767581.110874.267350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    > cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    > several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    > do anything.
    >
    > When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    > AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    > batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >
    > I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    > home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >
    > I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
    > Al
    >

    $50 in batteries. For what I currently pay for batteries, that would be
    about 25-50 batteries. I'd have probably been a little concerned about that
    many batteries too.

    Eric Miller
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    AlJ wrote:
    > I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    > cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    > several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    > do anything.
    >
    > When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    > AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    > batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >
    > I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    > home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >
    > I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
    > Al

    Keep one set in the camera and leave the rest in checked luggage. You
    don't really need to carry that extra weight around with you. Let the
    airline do it. :-)

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Why did they confiscate your batteries? I don't understand..

    "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:z_iVd.2388$3t3.44@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    > AlJ wrote:
    >> I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    >> cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    >> several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    >> do anything.
    >>
    >> When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    >> AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    >> batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    >> 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >>
    >> I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    >> home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >>
    >> I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
    >> Al
    >
    > Keep one set in the camera and leave the rest in checked luggage. You
    > don't really need to carry that extra weight around with you. Let the
    > airline do it. :-)
    >
    > --
    > Joseph Meehan
    >
    > 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    >
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    AIJ wrote relative to batteries the following:

    > Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > 1-2100, etc.

    What are you talking about? I have no idea what 1-1600 means, for example.

    PSsquare
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    PSsquare wrote:
    > AIJ wrote relative to batteries the following:
    >
    >> Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    >> 1-2100, etc.
    >
    > What are you talking about? I have no idea what 1-1600 means, for
    > example.
    >
    > PSsquare

    He's left with a single 1600 milliamp-hour AA battery from a set of
    four...

    Q
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On 2 Mar 2005 04:46:21 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    >cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    >several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    >do anything.
    >
    >When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    >AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    >batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    >1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.

    Send an email to your local congressman asking him to write to their
    government demanding the return of your kit. Your tax dollars pay for
    these people, so get them to do some useful harassing once in a while.

    >I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    >home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.

    Good idea.

    >I guess we're all safer

    Sadly this is not the case. You might *feel* safer, but personally, I
    don't think it's worth the hassle.

    --
    Owamanga!
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Perhaps you should visit Belize. Nice country with many things
    available. Didn't see much in the way of rechargeable batteries
    though. Someone mentioned they were in Belmopan. So what? That is a
    45 minute water taxi ride and a 2 hour car ride with no rental car.
    Not exactly running to the corner store.

    I put a value in the original post. I won't go hungry over the money.
    Cost isn't the issue. I am still irritated that they took them. With
    any warning, they would have been in the checked luggage. All I want
    them to do is tell me what items are a problem in time to do something
    about it.

    Still waiting for a response from TSA. I'll post it when I get it. I
    imagine they'll get back to me.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    AlJ wrote:
    > Batteries not banned. They felt I had too many. Afraid I might hook
    > up with the other person with whatever other components might be needed
    > to cause problems. Not sure what constitutes too many.
    >
    I certainly would have asked, to avoid future problems. And when they
    wanted to take some of them, would have offered them the oldest ones...
    How many DID you have?


    --
    Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1109792030.737939.29870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > Eric Miller comments:
    >
    > $50 in batteries. For what I currently pay for batteries, that would be
    >
    > about 25-50 batteries. I'd have probably been a little concerned about
    > that
    > many batteries too.
    >
    > 12 to 20 bucks a set of 4. My camera uses four, each flash unit uses
    > four. An extra set for each plus a spare set for contingencies, and
    > you're on 16 EXTRA batteries, plus those in the devices. A total of 7
    > sets. Confiscate just 3 sets and you're at $45 or more.
    >

    OK, I don't know where you are, but at $12-20 for four batteries, I'd guess
    that you are paying way too much. Since the original poster seems to be from
    the US, I was addressing what I expect his costs to have been. If anyone is
    paying $20 for a set of four rechargeable batteries in the US, they are
    getting ripped off. The most I pay anywhere is $14 for a set of eight, brand
    name (Energizer), 2300 mAh, NIMH batteries.

    Eric Miller
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <pupVd.42236$Rl5.23902@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, Eric Miller
    <ericmiller@cox-internet.com> wrote:

    > > 12 to 20 bucks a set of 4. My camera uses four, each flash unit uses
    > > four. An extra set for each plus a spare set for contingencies, and
    > > you're on 16 EXTRA batteries, plus those in the devices. A total of 7
    > > sets. Confiscate just 3 sets and you're at $45 or more.
    >
    > OK, I don't know where you are, but at $12-20 for four batteries, I'd guess
    > that you are paying way too much. Since the original poster seems to be from
    > the US, I was addressing what I expect his costs to have been. If anyone is
    > paying $20 for a set of four rechargeable batteries in the US, they are
    > getting ripped off. The most I pay anywhere is $14 for a set of eight, brand
    > name (Energizer), 2300 mAh, NIMH batteries.

    when travelling and visiting an unfamiliar city (and perhaps not even
    in the usa), the typical person probably does not know where to go to
    get good deals on batteries there. and even if they did, they might
    not want to spend their vacation time driving around trying to find
    such a deal (and assuming they rented a car) and missing out on photo
    opportunities while doing so.

    realistically, if batteries are confiscated, replacing them can easily
    be $12-20 per set.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On 2 Mar 2005 09:51:58 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >Batteries not banned. They felt I had too many. Afraid I might hook
    >up with the other person with whatever other components might be needed
    >to cause problems. Not sure what constitutes too many.

    This has been going on since WWII if not longer, and happens
    frequently. When my father used to travel to SA frequently, he'd carry
    a few packs of batteries extra, unopened, knowing they'd get taken.
    Cheap at the cost.
    In many couyntries, batteries are hard to come by, and are expensive.
    Airport employees (especially customs) have a very good oppurtinity to
    get a few, and sell them later, by simply taking them, knowing the
    losers won't complain too much.
    This isn't a First World country we're talking about.
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:04:11 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On 2 Mar 2005 04:46:21 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    >>cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    >>several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    >>do anything.
    >>
    >>When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    >>AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    >>batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    >>1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >
    >Send an email to your local congressman asking him to write to their
    >government demanding the return of your kit. Your tax dollars pay for
    >these people, so get them to do some useful harassing once in a while.

    Right.
    "What batteries? They are not illegal to bring in, and thus none were
    taken."
    >
    >>I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    >>home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >
    >Good idea.
    >
    >>I guess we're all safer
    >
    >Sadly this is not the case. You might *feel* safer, but personally, I
    >don't think it's worth the hassle.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Ha, the dreaded TSA.
    Anybody seen this:

    --Lost Bank of America Backup Tapes Contain Federal Employees' Personal Data
    (26/25 February 2005)
    Bank of America has revealed that it has lost backup tapes that contain
    personal data,
    including Social Security numbers and account information, of 1.2 million
    federal employees.
    Band of America Spokeswoman Eloise Hale said there is no evidence the tapes
    or the data they contain have been used, and that the tapes are presumed
    lost.
    Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) says he was told it is likely the tapes were
    stolen from a commercial airliner by baggage handlers in December.

    "Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:lphb215hkvvrcuj8l79v2u944iq4vjc05t@4ax.com...
    > On 2 Mar 2005 04:46:21 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    > >cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    > >several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    > >do anything.
    > >
    > >When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    > >AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    > >batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > >1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Doug" <dougcutler@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:DCkVd.3946$wy3.3616@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Ha, the dreaded TSA.
    > Anybody seen this:
    >
    > --Lost Bank of America Backup Tapes Contain Federal Employees' Personal
    > Data
    > (26/25 February 2005)
    > Bank of America has revealed that it has lost backup tapes that contain
    > personal data,
    > including Social Security numbers and account information, of 1.2 million
    > federal employees.
    > Band of America Spokeswoman Eloise Hale said there is no evidence the
    > tapes
    > or the data they contain have been used, and that the tapes are presumed
    > lost.
    > Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) says he was told it is likely the tapes
    > were
    > stolen from a commercial airliner by baggage handlers in December.
    >

    And WTF does this have to do with the TSA?

    TSA are not "baggage handlers." "Baggage handlers" are the ramp workers who
    are airline employees.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net> wrote in message
    news:HYGdnRr8kNzlVbjfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
    > PSsquare wrote:
    > > AIJ wrote relative to batteries the following:
    > >
    > >> Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > >> 1-2100, etc.
    > >
    > > What are you talking about? I have no idea what 1-1600 means, for
    > > example.
    > >
    > > PSsquare
    >
    > He's left with a single 1600 milliamp-hour AA battery from a set of
    > four...
    >
    > Q
    >
    Oh, now it is clear. This is why I was taught in engineering school to
    include the units and use proper English- one 1600 milliamp-hour etc. Well,
    if the issue needs explaining on a newsgroup, then it reasons that airport
    screeners in a fairly undeveloped country would be totally unaware of the
    problem. It has only been in the last two years that airport screeners in
    the USA understand film speed.

    Thanks,

    PSsquare


    >
  26. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    mAh even... ;-)

    Guy

    AlJ wrote:
    > The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
    > Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
    > TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
    > her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
    > matter. This is a fairly new issue.
    >
    > I agree that i could have taken one set of batteries and put the rest
    > in checked baggage. I would have been stuck though if the baggage
    > didn't get there. I don't think I could have replaced them anywhere I
    > was.
    >
    > Sorry about the confusion on the 1-1600 MAH, etc information when I
    > was talking about sets.
    >
    > My main issue was the ever changing security rules.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    You should be thankful that they confiscated your batteries! It they hadn't
    your plane might have been highjacked!!!

    KB


    "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1109767581.110874.267350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >I recently visited Belize. We flew from Washington Dulles. I had 3
    > cameras and an assortment of batteries. The Minolta uses AA so I had
    > several charged and ready. The lady at security commented but didn't
    > do anything.
    >
    > When we left Belize, they too commented. They confiscated half of my
    > AA batteries and busted up the sets. I figure they cost me $50 in
    > batteries. Some are left as full sets but others are 1-1600, 1-1800,
    > 1-2100, etc. No warning no anything.
    >
    > I suppose next time I will leave them in my checked luggage on the way
    > home but really like to carry them when I'm leaving town.
    >
    > I guess we're all safer but I'm poorer and irritated.
    > Al
    >
  28. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    AlJ wrote:

    > Batteries not banned. They felt I had too many. Afraid I might hook
    > up with the other person with whatever other components might be needed
    > to cause problems. Not sure what constitutes too many.


    Hi...

    Wonder if that number might not be enough to reach
    12 volts (with them in series)

    Just thinking that 12 volts is the normal operating
    voltage of many electronic devices.

    Ken
  29. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On 2 Mar 2005 11:33:50 -0800, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
    wrote:

    >Eric Miller comments:
    >
    >$50 in batteries. For what I currently pay for batteries, that would be
    >
    >about 25-50 batteries. I'd have probably been a little concerned about
    >that
    >many batteries too.
    >
    >12 to 20 bucks a set of 4. My camera uses four, each flash unit uses
    >four. An extra set for each plus a spare set for contingencies, and
    >you're on 16 EXTRA batteries, plus those in the devices. A total of 7
    >sets. Confiscate just 3 sets and you're at $45 or more.

    Take off your sock, load it up with batteries and you've got a device
    that can kill a man with two strikes. TSA are overly worried about
    your shoes, but you never have to demonstrate the tensile strength (or
    lack of) of your socks.

    Still, that can be said of many things they do let you take on-board.

    Iv'e done some extensive calculations into this and come to the
    conclusion that the TSA overreacts 99.999999991332% of the time, and
    in every case where an item has to change hands, they *take* something
    from the victim, but never *give* anything to anybody. Given that you
    pay their wages, it's employee theft.

    --
    Owamanga!
  30. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Eric Miller writes:

    OK, I don't know where you are, but at $12-20 for four batteries, I'd
    guess
    that you are paying way too much. Since the original poster seems to be
    from
    the US, I was addressing what I expect his costs to have been. If
    anyone is
    paying $20 for a set of four rechargeable batteries in the US, they are

    getting ripped off. The most I pay anywhere is $14 for a set of eight,
    brand
    name (Energizer), 2300 mAh, NIMH batteries

    I'm in the U.S. And I can find 2300 mAh NiMH Energizers here for a set
    of FOUR for about ten bucks, but for other brands, including Quest and
    Sanyo, I expect to pay a bit more. Dropping the cost to my lowest
    estimate, $12, still leaves $48 for four sets. You must do a lot of
    shopping around for price on batteries. I don't, but, then they are
    items that only need replacement every four or five years, usually one
    set at a time.

    I still can't see the rationale TSA is using. But, then, I haven't been
    able to see the rationale they used every since the last time they
    screwed up re-packing my luggage and ruined a couple things for me. And
    I do hope they enjoyed my last return trip when someone sorted my dirty
    underwear into the clean clothing and left it there.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    nospam responds:
    when travelling and visiting an unfamiliar city (and perhaps not even
    in the usa), the typical person probably does not know where to go to
    get good deals on batteries there. and even if they did, they might
    not want to spend their vacation time driving around trying to find
    such a deal (and assuming they rented a car) and missing out on photo
    opportunities while doing so.

    realistically, if batteries are confiscated, replacing them can easily
    be $12-20 per set.

    Yes. And I just spent a few minutes checking the Thomas web site.
    Cheapest 2100 mAh Energizers are $6.97 in major multiples--for four,
    not eight--and you really do need to add shipping to that.

    If TSA is going to have asinine rules, and it is, it needs to publicize
    those rules so it is possible to follow them. Maybe a reasonable 60 or
    90 day time for rules changes. Of course, I'm sure the powers-that-be
    see that as giving terrorists warning of measures to be taken, but,
    hell, they've got TSA's number already, I'd imagine.
  32. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
    >Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
    >TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
    >her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
    >matter. This is a fairly new issue.

    Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
    their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
    airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
    The TSA is a uniquely US organization.
    >
    >I agree that i could have taken one set of batteries and put the rest
    >in checked baggage. I would have been stuck though if the baggage
    >didn't get there. I don't think I could have replaced them anywhere I
    >was.
    >
    >Sorry about the confusion on the 1-1600 MAH, etc information when I was
    >talking about sets.
    >
    >My main issue was the ever changing security rules.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  33. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:06:53 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    >On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
    >>Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
    >>TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
    >>her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
    >>matter. This is a fairly new issue.
    >
    >Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
    >their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
    >airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
    >The TSA is a uniquely US organization.

    Rules are different for U.S. Flag carriers even overseas.
    ********************************************************

    "A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

    _Introductions to History of the Reformation_
    Jonathan Swift
    1667-1745
  34. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <6dde21pifqs26lmh14dnfas7u46l1pu43h@4ax.com>, Big Bill
    <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    > On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > >The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
    > >Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
    > >TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
    > >her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
    > >matter. This is a fairly new issue.
    >
    > Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
    > their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
    > airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
    > The TSA is a uniquely US organization.

    flights bound for the usa need to adhere to the tsa guidelines. so yes,
    the tsa does tell them how to run the show.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Big Bill wrote:

    >
    http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_8_23_2004.pdf

    This document says the list is not "all-inclusive". It goes on to say
    that "the screener may also determine that an item on the permitted
    chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the
    security checkpoint." Ergo, the list is operationally useless.

    > If batteries were prohibited, wouldn't *all* of them be taken?

    They are allowed to make it up as they go along: the regulations
    basically say so.

    > I bel;ieve this was a case of someone simply wanting some batteries,
    > and using the position of being a security agent as a cover for the
    > theft.

    There are many people who believe this is the basic function of
    government.

    > As I wrote earlier, it's happened before.

    Yeah, well, but it's also "happened before" that someone has posted a
    bullshit story on USENET to solicit responses etc. What evidence do we
    have in hand to support or reject either hypothesis in this case?
  36. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:59:59 -0600, John A. Stovall
    <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

    >On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:06:53 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
    >>>Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
    >>>TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
    >>>her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
    >>>matter. This is a fairly new issue.
    >>
    >>Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
    >>their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
    >>airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
    >>The TSA is a uniquely US organization.
    >
    >Rules are different for U.S. Flag carriers even overseas.

    Understood.
    But is the TSA running security in Belize?
    Batteries aren't listed in the TSA's list of Permitted-Prohibited
    items:
    http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_8_23_2004.pdf
    If batteries were prohibited, wouldn't *all* of them be taken?

    I bel;ieve this was a case of someone simply wanting some batteries,
    and using the position of being a security agent as a cover for the
    theft. As I wrote earlier, it's happened before.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  37. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Steve writes:

    so I would assume the concern is only about
    batteries shorting out and starting a fire (thus the issue with dive
    lights).
    Realistically that's extremely unlikely even with a few dozen batteries
    unless
    they're packed in foil, but the potential consequences of a fire on a
    plane are
    significant enough to warrant some minor paranoia. Limiting batteries
    in carry on to
    a couple of dozen spread through a couple of bags is probably a good
    strategy.

    But totally ignores the possibility of batteries improperly stowed in
    the belly of the beast. Might they figure that fire in the baggage hold
    from shorted out batteries is less serious than fire in the passenger
    compartment?
  38. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Thanks for the warning as my wife
    > mentioned going there recently. How many batteries were you carrying?
    > Is there some threshold?

    I've seen several reports recently that the airlines are concerned about batteries
    being left in dive lights and even regular flashlights, but so far I haven't seen any
    problems with batteries, either in checked luggage or carry on. On a trip to
    Micronesia a year ago I checked a suitcase with 96 AA and 16 C batteries, which
    probably put me in the 99th percentile for how many batteries tourists carry with
    them. TSA opened the suitcase, but only rummaged through it. On a trip to Honduras
    last January my wife and I each had dive lights with 8AA batteries in them in our
    carry on bags, and my camera bag had 12 AA NiMH, plus two batteries for the camera
    (L-ion package that's about 2 AA size). We made 4 trips through security checkpoints
    (Newark, Honduras, and twice in Houston). The camera bag did get rotated and run back
    through the x-ray machine once, but nobody said a word about the batteries or looked
    in any of the bags.

    Assuming TSA is smart enough to figure that my wife and I could easily pool our
    batteries, our itinerary suggests that if there is a threshold it's at least 28 AA
    batteries. A couple of people with only a few batteries a piece would easily have
    enough for timing devices or detonators, so I would assume the concern is only about
    batteries shorting out and starting a fire (thus the issue with dive lights).
    Realistically that's extremely unlikely even with a few dozen batteries unless
    they're packed in foil, but the potential consequences of a fire on a plane are
    significant enough to warrant some minor paranoia. Limiting batteries in carry on to
    a couple of dozen spread through a couple of bags is probably a good strategy.

    --
    Steve

    The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
    belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

    If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    The cost of batteries isn't and wasn't the issue. I may have over
    estimated the cost. Not a huge issue since I wasn't asking for replace
    costs. The batteries were purchased over a period of time and I didn't
    count how many. Some were old enough to be 1800mah.

    Picture yourself going to an island where you couldn't easily replace
    your batteries and having half confiscated. That is my issue. If I
    go through security with a wine corkscrew, they'll take it. I know
    that so I deal with it. Batteries? Who would have thought it?

    Still waiting for TSA to respond to me email asking about this.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On 3 Mar 2005 16:47:29 -0800, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

    >Big Bill wrote:
    >
    >>
    >http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_8_23_2004.pdf
    >
    >This document says the list is not "all-inclusive". It goes on to say
    >that "the screener may also determine that an item on the permitted
    >chart is dangerous and therefore may not be brought through the
    >security checkpoint." Ergo, the list is operationally useless.
    >
    >> If batteries were prohibited, wouldn't *all* of them be taken?
    >
    >They are allowed to make it up as they go along: the regulations
    >basically say so.

    I can understand, as you say, that hey can ban anything they want to.
    But why would they take only a certain number of them, even going so
    far as to obviously pick and choose between matched sets?
    That makes no sense if it's being done as a safety measure. It would
    be all or none.
    >
    >> I bel;ieve this was a case of someone simply wanting some batteries,
    >> and using the position of being a security agent as a cover for the
    >> theft.
    >
    >There are many people who believe this is the basic function of
    >government.
    >
    >> As I wrote earlier, it's happened before.
    >
    >Yeah, well, but it's also "happened before" that someone has posted a
    >bullshit story on USENET to solicit responses etc. What evidence do we
    >have in hand to support or reject either hypothesis in this case?

    None.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  41. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 15:00:41 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
    wrote:

    >In article <6dde21pifqs26lmh14dnfas7u46l1pu43h@4ax.com>, Big Bill
    ><bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2 Mar 2005 08:44:06 -0800, "AlJ" <al_johnson1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The lady was trained by TSA to do this. It wasn't an issue with
    >> >Belize. She explained herself clearly and was apologetic. She said
    >> >TSA audits them every 2 months. I really didn't have an issue with
    >> >her. The fact that eyebrows weren't raised in the past appears not to
    >> >matter. This is a fairly new issue.
    >>
    >> Why would the TSA have anything to do with this? Doesn't Belize run
    >> their own airports? I don't think we let Belize tell us how to run our
    >> airports. Was this lady an employee of the TSA?
    >> The TSA is a uniquely US organization.
    >
    >flights bound for the usa need to adhere to the tsa guidelines. so yes,
    >the tsa does tell them how to run the show.

    Then why not all the batteries?
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  42. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Charlie Self wrote:

    >> Limiting batteries in carry on to a couple of dozen
    >> spread through a couple of bags is probably a good strategy.
    >
    > But totally ignores the possibility of batteries improperly stowed in
    > the belly of the beast. Might they figure that fire in the baggage hold
    > from shorted out batteries is less serious than fire in the passenger
    > compartment?


    The discussion at hand was about batteries confiscated from carry on so that's what I
    was addressing in the last line, and if there was any confusion I was referring to
    passenger strategy to avoid confiscation rather than airline strategy to prevent
    fires. My own experience is that the way I packed them, several dozen batteries in
    checked luggage didn't result in any problems, and I can't really envision a likely
    scenario in which they are a problem. It might be worth noting that there are also
    restrictions on how many matches or butane lighters passengers are allowed to carry,
    and you aren't supposed to be carrying Bacardi 151 from the duty-free shop. Of course
    if there's going to be a fire, I'm guessing there's a better chance of early
    discovery and putting it out if it's in the passenger compartment. From much of what
    I've seen, though, I suspect the odds are that a fire is more likely to result from
    commercial cargo than stuff that passengers bring, whether checked or carry on.

    BTW, I've occasionally found your posts a tad confusing when you quote more than a
    single paragraph, since the lack of carats makes it unclear where the quote ends.
    Might I suggest that you add some carats the old fashioned way,

    << so that the quoted part is distinct? >>

    --
    Steve

    The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
    belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

    If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
  43. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Big Bill writes:

    > Then why not all the batteries?

    They may be trying to detect batteries rigged as explosive devices.
    That would explain breaking up sets. If they randomly sample the
    batteries and they are all okay, the rest are probably okay as well.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  44. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:13:33 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Big Bill writes:
    >
    >> Then why not all the batteries?
    >
    >They may be trying to detect batteries rigged as explosive devices.
    >That would explain breaking up sets. If they randomly sample the
    >batteries and they are all okay, the rest are probably okay as well.

    This wasn't a sampling, it was a taking.
    Sampling can be done on the spot, and if it's not done on the spot,
    it's too late when results are in.
    This was, as I said earlier, a simple case of an airport employee
    supplementing income through reselling items in short supply.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  45. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Sheldon writes:

    > You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
    > battery?

    Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
    batteries, though.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:14:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >Sheldon writes:
    >
    >> You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
    >> battery?
    >
    >Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
    >batteries, though.

    If this were the reason, why are lithium batteries not banned?

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  47. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    AlJ writes:

    > Batteries not banned. They felt I had too many. Afraid I might hook
    > up with the other person with whatever other components might be needed
    > to cause problems. Not sure what constitutes too many.

    There are two potential misuses of lithium AA batteries: (1) lithium
    batteries can be used as explosives under the right conditions (although
    commercial AA lithiums have safety mechanisms that normally prevent
    explosions); and (2) lithium batteries provide a key ingredient used in
    illegal methamphetamine labs.

    Ordinary (non-lithium) AA batteries should not present any problem, as
    far as I know. I suppose someone might worry about connecting them all
    together to set off an explosive device or something. I don't know why
    TSA would care about meth labs, but these days the government seems to
    care about everything.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
  48. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:35:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:14:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Sheldon writes:
    >>
    >>> You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
    >>> battery?
    >>
    >>Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
    >>batteries, though.
    >
    >If this were the reason, why are lithium batteries not banned?

    Anything can be made to explode with enough C4. A lithium battery on
    it's own is barely enough to wound a cat, let-alone bring down an
    aircraft. That's not the point here, the guy was simply collecting
    batteries - daylight robbery legitimized by the US government's TSA
    badge, it's that simple.

    We know that the Government never used to do background checks on
    airport security personnel, and if even if they do now - it's
    meaningless. The average age of a TSA employee is around 15, so they
    haven't had a chance to get an adult criminal record yet.

    <g>

    --
    Owamanga!
  49. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:14:35 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 14:35:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 21:14:07 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sheldon writes:
    >>>
    >>>> You can probably make a key fob out of C4 and nobody would notice, but a
    >>>> battery?
    >>>
    >>>Lithium batteries can be made to explode. No danger for other types of
    >>>batteries, though.
    >>
    >>If this were the reason, why are lithium batteries not banned?
    >
    >Anything can be made to explode with enough C4. A lithium battery on
    >it's own is barely enough to wound a cat, let-alone bring down an
    >aircraft. That's not the point here, the guy was simply collecting
    >batteries - daylight robbery legitimized by the US government's TSA
    >badge, it's that simple.

    Yes, that's what I'm saying, too.
    >
    >We know that the Government never used to do background checks on
    >airport security personnel, and if even if they do now - it's
    >meaningless. The average age of a TSA employee is around 15, so they
    >haven't had a chance to get an adult criminal record yet.
    >
    ><g>

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Cameras