NEW YORK, July 20, 2007
TSA To Lift Ban On Most Lighters On Planes
Security Chief Says Taking Lighters Away From Passengers Was "Security Theater"
-
(AP (file))
-
Interactive America On Guard The Homeland Security Department, the terror alert system, preparedness quiz and more.
"Taking lighters away is security theater," Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley told The New York Times in an interview Thursday.
Starting Aug. 4, air travelers will be allowed to carry on disposable butane lighters, such as Bics, and refillable lighters, including Zippos, according to the Times. A prohibition on torch-style lighters, which have hotter flames, will continue.
Lighters have been barred from checked bags for decades because of concerns that the lighters might start fires in cargo holds. Congress decided to stop air travelers from carrying lighters aboard after Richard Reid used matches to try to light explosives hidden in his shoes while on a Paris-to-Miami flight in 2001. Lawmakers worried that Reid might have succeeded if he had had a lighter. The lighter ban took effect in April 2005.
Security screeners now collect an average of 22,000 lighters a day, and it costs about $4 million a year to dispose of them, the Times reported.
"The United States previously had been the only nation in the world to prohibit lighters from carry-ons," the TSA wrote in a press release. "Lifting this ban is another step in our efforts to harmonize security measures with international partners."
Hawley said confiscating lighters hasn't meant much for security, as other items could be used to detonate bombs.
"The No. 1 threat for us is someone trying to bring bomb components through the security checkpoint," the TSA administrator said. "We don't want anything that distracts concentration from searching for that."
The congressional measure that governed the Homeland Security Department's 2007 spending let the agency stop enforcing the lighter ban if it found that "lighters are not a significant threat to civil aviation security."
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From U.S.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 47 CommentsRight, and no one is going to bring a gun or bomb on the plane either. And who in their right mind would ever try to hijack an airplane? That would be silly.
So, I was right all along- this "war on terror" was bogus from the beginning, all a set up for BushWhacked to justify the bombing & occupation of another country for his game of world domination....
But moms can't bring juice in Sippy Cups on planes to give their toddlers something to drink, I can't bring mascarra, toothpaste is super dangerous, don't get me started on deodorant...
What the hell is a passenger going to do with a lighter but to MAKE A FIRE ON THE PLANE!
Let the addict save the cigarette until he's back on the ground.
Posted by Agnim at 04:01 PM : Jul 22, 2007
You're an IDIOT! nobody is going to set the plane on fire, (unless they are trapped in a snowstorm,) so the passengers can get off the plane,.... maybe,...... Then? naw, noway YOU ARE A IDIOT,......nuff said
NO LIGHTERS ON PLANE!
Passengers should be told who has a lighter before the plane takes off.
What the hell is a passenger going to do with a lighter but to MAKE A FIRE ON THE PLANE!
Let the addict save the cigarette until he's back on the ground.
who is drunk will attack a flight attendant with a pen/pencil or hit them over the head with a laptop. Ban those!
I might be on to something. Watch this space for further details!
Posted by ecuadoriana
I don't think I'd like the 'nekked' version, but I might be interested in the smokers only flights!! Keep us posted!
Seer999, I believe you inadvertently misdirected your comment to the wrong poster. Nvme3 didn't mention mascara in his post, I did. Assuming it was me you meant to question/attack, I will attempt to clarify the situation.
Sure people have as much right to smoke as I do to wear a bit of mascara. The difference is that those around me will not suffer from second-hand black lashes, while those near smokers WILL suffer from second-hand black lungs. (I'm a firm believer in the right to kill oneself, but not to take innocent bystanders with you.)
(cont.)
But the real point here is not smokers vs mascara wearers. The real point is the insanity that fuels a debate as to whether things like mascara, deodorant, nail clippers, toothpaste are more dangerous to bring on a plane than something that can set fire to the cabin & detonate an explosive. Protecting the rights of the smokers to light up immediately upon exiting the airport now takes precedence over the safety of the passengers?! Rather than pumping oxygen into the cabin they may as well pump cigarette smoke! Then the smokers wouldn't need their lighters at all & the non-smokers would probably beat them to death with the in-flight magazines anyway (win-win, I say)!
I propose a solution. Airlines can run "Smokers Only" flights. Then everyone can bring aboard all the bics they want (the attendants can even sell them along with the $5 cans of Bud Light)! In consideration for the more healthful minded people, they could run "Non-Smokers Only" flights where it wouldn't occur to anyone to be so idiotic as to bring a lighter on board. Maybe they could even have "Nekked with No Baggage" flights- no clothes or shoes, no toothbrushes, no cell phones or laptops, nothing!
I might be on to something. Watch this space for further details!
And guess what nvme3, people have just as much right to smoke as you do to wear mascara, or are only YOUR freedoms important?
Now lets look at bottled water, makeup, taking our shoes off, etc., etc. A little known fact: the government does ongoing testing of our security screening system by sending agents with fake bombs, guns etc through security. Would you care to guess what happened to their scores after initiating all these little extra "security" measures? Yep, the number of missed artcles went way up. So, you may get a gun on board a plane, but by god that mascara will be confiscated. Security theater indeed!
Coming back I had even less items in my one carry on bag than I did flying out & yet I was stopped, pulled aside & had my bag openned & pawed through in front of all my soon to be fellow passengers (I felt a lot of nervous, hairy eyeballs darting at the back of my head!).
What dangerous items showed up on the X-ray machine? 3 tampons & a mascara tube! They let me keep the tampons, but confiscated the mascara! I guess they were afraid I was gonna go all Marilyn Manson or Alice Cooper on them & cause a Mascara Massacre!
Yet they want to re-allow incendiary devices such as lighters to be brought on flights for the convenience of the passengers who can't handle life without their smokes?????? The tobacco industry obviously is the fuel behind this bass-ackwards thinking!
A lighter, like knitting needles, letter openers, all acceptable now but any of which can do a lot of damage.
I know of what I speak as I worked for TSA for three years and there was not a day that I was not surprised by mediocre TSA people making mediocre decisions.
The longest post-training instruction I ever received was how to wand and check a monkey wearing a diaper, a twenty-five minute discourse.
No one had ever seen a monkey come through the airport in the three years I was there.
Meanwhile, many new and important information facts about threats and numerous dangerous new items were never discussed and learned about only in informal discussions.
To me, any potentially dangerous item, no matter how big or small, should be restricted.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or in this case, an airplane kept flying free of danger.
nebody got de link?
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 47 Comments