A thought crossed my mind earlier today, as I considered my next vacation, and the future of air travel with my camera gear and film. We've all been dealing with film and x-ray machine problems for some time now, but generally an earnest smile was enough to be granted an x-rayless hand-check of my film. Given the recent events, I believe those days are (and probably should be) over. I also heard that the FAA is considering a new regulation prohibiting ANY carry-on items of any type, including a woman's purse, being brought on-board. This will likely mean checking our precious camera gear in some type of protective case that screams "VALUABLE STUFF INSIDE!".

So I am curious as to what others of you think... With film being subjected to X-ray machines being turned up higher, likely multiple passes, and prohibitions from keeping our gear secure and in close proximity, where does the future of travel photography now lie? Digital may solve the x-ray-zapped film problem, but not the security issue - and I'm not real sure I want to travel with a Nikon D1X-sized camera anyway. I like my Leica, and I feel like it may now become an extinct travel species...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 12, 2001

Answers

That's absurd. Where did you "hear" the FAA was going to ban carry-on luggage--in a chat room?

You're entitled to a hand-check of your film at any U.S. airport, and that's on the basis of the FAA's regs, not your personality. Until they change or suspend that reg, politely point it out to the security inspector. Expect a more thorough and time-consuming hand chack under the new security regime (even before 9/11, at SeaTac they ran my Tupperware tubs full of film through an explosives sniffer), and budget more time for it before your flight.

And if all else fails (or you're traveling overseas, where you don't usually have a right to a hand check), putting your film through a carry-on scanner isn't a big deal anymore. On my last trip in July, I had several rolls of Delta 3200 survive multiple passes through carry- on x-rays machines without any damage. Whatever you do, don't put film in your checked baggage---the CAT scanners they are increasingly using for checked bags *will* fry your film.

-- Chuck Albertson (chucko@siteconnect.com), September 12, 2001.

I also heard that the FAA is considering a new regulation prohibiting ANY carry-on items of any type

I saw this on another photo bulletin board but as far as I can tell, it is just another rumour. I have found numerous articles about changes in FAA regulations and the only place this is referenced is on that photo site. Before spreading more rumours, find a source. A good article on what will happen can be found here:

Yahoo article.

I hope everyone and their family and friends are ok.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 12, 2001.

I too am concerned about what the new regulations and procedures will mean for air travel. To be fair to each other, we should wait to see what the new rules will be but I have heard several times in the past (following the Pan Am 103 incident, following the TWA 800 incident which appears to be an accident etc.) when FAA officials SUGGESTED such a ban on hand-carry items.

How about the hardware - how do the lenses fair with repeated trips through the X-ray machine?

Only time will tell.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), September 12, 2001.

How about the hardware - how do the lenses fair with repeated trips through the X-ray machine?

Is this a joke?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 12, 2001.

FYI:

I heard the report about carry-on lugage on CBS news earlier today...

Chuck: I understand your comments -- All I am suggesting is that what you describe is the way it USED to be. I feel certain that the system and proceedures we have grown used to will be have changed dramatically the next time any of us get on a flight.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 12, 2001.

And for anybody else that cares, this forum is the closest thing to an internet-chat-room that I participate in.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 12, 2001.

I'd say the only changes so far are that you can't carry any knives on board--not of any kind, even a Swiss Army knife. I imagine we can still put them in our checked baggage. The other change is, no more curbside checkin. Fine. small prices to pay. I wouldn't like it if we couldn't carry on anything, but I'd respect it, in view of the much higher price the country has recently had to pay. If I have to settle for putting something expendable in the checked baggage, like an 8008, I'll gladly do it.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 12, 2001.

No more electronic tickets, no more curbside check-in, no more knives of any size even plastic ones--these were just confirmed. There is talk of requiring photo ID's to actually board the plane, not just to get a boarding pass. (Funny if you think of it, as before they would check your ID diligently before giving you a boarding pass, but then you could give the pass to anybody and they could enter the plane). I did not come accross any info about "no carry on" but that the checking of it will be more intense. I would hate to have a job that required extensive air travel right now, as the all to common delays are going to become worse. The increase in security always comes at a cost, time and convenience go out the window.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 12, 2001.

I can't imaging a total ban on carry-ons...For one thing, that would virtually prohibit travelling with children, as they require LOTS of carry-on stuff (snacks and drinks, diapers, toys, etc.).

As far as film goes, you are entitled to hand inspection of ANYTHING you request at U.S. airports, but make it easy for them: remove film from cardboard and from the plastic cannisters and put it in ziplock bags (I've had security personnel remove each of two dozen film rolls from the plastic cannisters -- no fun for me nor for them). With the film in ziplocks and a bit of polite persistence, I've managed to always get film hand-inspected, not run through x-ray machines, even at London's Heathrow, which is notorious for NOT giving hand inspections, and also in Istanbul, which has military personnel doing airport security.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), September 12, 2001.

Doug and Chuck:

I don't think you guys are getting my point... Monday, you were entitled to, and could have had your film hand-checked. After yesterday, I don't think they'll do that for you anymore.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 12, 2001.

I just happen to be preparing the page for tomorrow's Rocky Mountain News (Denver) ON THIS SUBJECT: Here is verbatim quote from our story. It does not address film/cameras per se, but as Jack said, Tuesday morning (9/11/01) the world turned upside down, and you don't have ANY rights that aren't in the Constitution.

A. A ban on knives — even plastic — in terminals. This will force food vendors within the airport to prepare items that need cutting — lettuce, meat, fruit and vegetables — at another location. B. Armed U.S. marshals aboard planes. C. No parking for ‘‘profile vehicles,’’ such as an SUV or RV with tinted windows, or unattended vehicles within 300 feet of the terminal. Regular passenger vehicles will be kept back 75 feet. D. Elimination of curbside check-ins. E. Requiring a boarding pass to get through security checkpoints, so only passengers will be able to get to gates. F. A possible ban on carry-on baggage. [note "POSSIBLE" - A.P.] G. Requiring passengers to check in for their flights up to two hours ahead of time.

It may be crazy, it may be insupportable, it may be draconian - but it IS!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 13, 2001.

As far as film goes, you are entitled to hand inspection of ANYTHING you request at U.S. airports, but make it easy for them

Have you actually read the appropriate documents? FAR Part 107 allows emergency changes at the discretion of the govenment. You are not entitled to hand inspection if the FAA deems it so in case of an emergency.

It would really help to read the regulations so that you understand them rather than just repeating what you may have seen on the net. Five minutes with the FAR and you could find the appropriate sections. Click here and go to section 107.11. Note section (f) in particular.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 13, 2001.

Some more from our story:

"Denver International Airport will gradually return to life beginning today, but travelers may be shocked at the security changes that two days have brought.

"The way we will open the airport, when it reopens, will be different than it ever has been before," Mayor Wellington Webb said Wednesday."

I.E. - "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 13, 2001.

I don't dispute that the FAA can change their security requirements if necessary, and I don't have any problems with most of the changes that have been bruted about. I wouldn't particularly care if they insisted on x-raying the film in my carry-on bag. I can re-learn eating with my fingers, if they're serious about banning silverware, plastic or otherwise.

But the notion that they will ban all carry-on luggage doesn't even bear cursory analysis---it's simply not practical. Business travelers aren't about to check their notebooks, and in my line of work only The Doomed would consign client documents to the baggage hold. I don't know who is floating this idea to the wire services (or whomever), but it falls into the category of that howler I heard on one news show tonight---"Sky marshalls for every commercial flight in the United States!" Sounds neat, but try doing the numbers of how many people the guv would have to hire and train to cover 40,000 flights a day. They don't crunch.

-- Chuck Albertson (chucko@siteconnect.com), September 13, 2001.

Let's not jump to conclusions about whether this or that may or may not happen. Obviously, this is a rapidly developing situation and a national emergency, so we'll just have to wait and see. We still getting bits and pieces of information. Only time will tell how we will all be affected.

And I know everyone means well (and this is not meant as a personal attack to any members of this fantastic forum), but in the face of this disaster, worrying about whether or not I can get a hand inspection of my film or whether or not I can have a carry-on bag seems a trivial matter. I work at a building adjacent to the north tower of the WTC and after seeing the kind of carnage and destruction that occured on Tuesday, I know that things must change. What that means to me as a photographer and how I accomplish my assignments, I don't know yet. And frankly, part of me really doesn't care right now. I apologize for souring the mood -- this forum has always been a great resource for information.

-- Richard Le (rvle@bellatlantic.net), September 13, 2001.

Chuck: Ummm.... As of tonight, there are ZERO flights and ZERO passengers per day. Midway Airlines just went out of business - gone, like the WTC.

There is not going to be 'business as usual' in the American air travel industry for a long, long time. I will bet you that it will be 3 years - at least - before we are anywhere close to 40,000 flights a day again.

That list wasn't from a wire service - it was our reporter talking to Denver International officials about the restrictions they will be operating under this (Thursday) morning in order to get FAA permission to reopen.

The FAA is going to run a 'safe' air industry. If that means 500 flights a day NATIONWIDE (with air marshals), that's what will be available, until they can ratchet up the number while maintaining safety. A business traveler who "isn't about to check his notebook" is likely to get a visit to the little room labeled "Security" - and catch a later flight (if (s)hes lucky.)

It may not be that bad. There may be no carry-on ban if the FAA figures they can avoid it and maintain safety. It may be possible to get hand inspections as the shock wears off, especially if we help out with the plastic baggie trick. But whether business or other travellers "like" it or not will cut very little ice with the FAA.

The paradigm shifted when that fireball blew out the side of the South Tower. In the old 1940's phrase, "S'matter? Don't you know there's a war on?"

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 13, 2001.

Off the cuff...

Unless you have small children or a baby, what's the big deal with no carry-on luggage? Just pack to check everything in.

Worried about the safety of a briefcase or cameras etc? I'm sure luggage choices will develop to make that convenient as well. No laptop? Use a notebook-yes the paper kind. No cutlery? Think you are at McDonalds and eat with your hands-the food is usually worse anyway :-)

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), September 13, 2001.

Some of us without children need to be distracted also.

Having no carry on baggage will significantly increase the ammount of booze sold on plane flights. One carry one bag is my camera gear (I don't want to have to check it, but if I have to, so be it) and the other is a few necessities, laptop, and the rest is stuff to keep me occupied on cross country flights. Six hours of reading the inflight magazines is going to be pretty boring.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 13, 2001.

I could live with CTX5000 scans of carry-on luggage if necessary, although it's the end of silver-based photography. But the prohibition of any carry-on luggage? Well, people in Germany use to think of civil rights as something that is granted by a generous government which may revoke them at any time, and is obliged to do so under certain circumstances. So don't give any ideas to my paranoid representatives :-(

What about a book, carried in the hand, to be taken aboard, Josh? I'm ready to set a precedent by refusing to check my breviary: if I must not take it aboard, freedom of religion is violated IMHO as I insist on my right to pray the liturgy of the hours...

Mani, your suggestion that "luggage choices will develop to make that [checking cameras etc.] convenient" sounds nice, but what can stop thieves from taking an entire gym bag or suitcase?

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), September 13, 2001.

Good grief - as if there was no life before laptop computers! As well, to the comment about more booze on the airlines. It's already been announced a month ago (more to do with air rage) that in the future liquor sales will be limited on flights. I too agree that considering the tradgedy that has just happened, and the attendent loss in life - that worrying about whether you'll be able to carry on your precious laptop is just a wee bit selfish. There will be lots of time to figure this stuff out. Right now instead of worrying about trivials - do something usefull such as donate blood.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 13, 2001.

Andy: I must take exception to your characterization of the failure of Midway Airlines. You stated that "Midway Airlines just went out of business - gone, like the WTC." As someone who watched the Pentagon burn before it was broadcast on television, I cannot see the parallel between a foreseen business failure, where people lost their replaceable jobs, and the unforeseen terrorist attacks against the WTC and the Pentagon, where thousands lost their lives.

-- Dan Blair (hiker1017@yahoo.com), September 13, 2001.

It was mentioned on the BBC this lunchtime that it is expected that all air passengers will have to pack hand-baggage into their cases before boarding and jewellry will be put into a sealed plastic bag. this is likely to apply in the US also.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), September 13, 2001.

Like I mentioned in a previous thread--whenever security measures are increased, personal freedom gets sacrificed, and whether all these things being implemented (that will make air travel more unpleasant than ever) will actually prevent something like what just happened is still doubtful in my mind. To come up with a system that will locate and stop all of the few potential high jackers out of several million regular air travelers is a near impossible task. I also know they have to try. How the airline business is going to stay IN business is a question I have. Like it or not, we are going to have to come to grips with the fact that we are vulnerable here in the US, and there may be little we can do about it.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), September 13, 2001.

If I ever get to take my Leica M on board again, I certainly hope that the security "professionals" will do more than insist that I take my lens cap off so they can look through the "viewfinder!" Training for security personnel ought to include some technical information about some of the things we bring aboard, like cameras.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), September 13, 2001.

Back off Bob,

This whole thread is pretty selfish in light of the tragedy that has occured. But if we are going to discuss it, we're going to discuss it. Of course I would travel with nothing more than the clothes on my back if I had to. Peoples lives are more important than any boredom that I might encounter. Saying crap like "Go do something useful, like give blood" is a pretty holier-than-thou way to act. As if someone couldn't both care and worry about the tragedy (and give blood or money to the rescue), and yet still think about what life will be like and how it will affect them after this is all settled back down. Some of us fly a lot, some of us hardly ever. But it is somnething we'll all have to deal with. Especially as photographers and ESPECIALLY those of us who have to travel for a living.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 13, 2001.

As my Uncle Theodore used to say, "What's done is done! Forget about it." It's not up to the Airlines or the Citizens to protect the USA; it's the business of the Government. If, ten years ago, the Government had decided to get serious about terrorist, then NY may not have happened. Unfortunately, the Government decided to spend a billion dollars using cruise missles to blow up some mud huts in Afganistan, and a laxative factory in the Sudan(?). So now, what's the answer? No more plastic knifes in Airline terminals??? I'm sorry, I DON'T GET IT! Don't whine or cry about it! It's your Government, demand real action, or suffer the consquences!

-- Leicaddict (leicaddict@hotmail.com), September 13, 2001.

Jeff--

Do you know for a fact that hand inspection of film is to be immediately disallowed? If not, then perhaps you should not so stridently object to my statement. I was writing about the situation UP TO tuesday, in case it was not obvious.

I like this forum because it seems very civil and polite; perhaps we should try to keep it that way...People will always state things with which others disagree, even things which are factually wrong, but such statements do not necessarily require discourteous responses.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), September 13, 2001.

and the rest is stuff to keep me occupied on cross country flights. Six hours of reading the inflight magazines is going to be pretty boring. (from Josh's previous post)

Josh - I hope you have given blood - or would you find that too bori

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 13, 2001.

and the rest is stuff to keep me occupied on cross country flights. Six hours of reading the inflight magazines is going to be pretty boring. (from Josh's previous post)

Josh - I hope you have given blood - or would you find that too boring.........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 13, 2001.

Sounds like the freaking LUG around here today.

-- John Fleetwood (johnfleetwood@hotmail.com), September 13, 2001.

Who's the one doing something useless now Bob? Screw you. Not all of us can give blood. Some people have medical conditions. I donated money to the Red Cross as soon as I could get through on the phone. And if I were anywhere around the disaster area, I would try to help in any way I could.

But I'm not, so I can't. And if I want to discuss how this will affect my life as a working photographer. Then I will.

Take your pissy attitude somewhere else.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 13, 2001.

The Red Cross phone lines and website are jammed up these days. As the good people of the US (and the world) try to help however they can. So for those who can't (or won't due to religious or other beliefs) donate blood, Amazon is accepting donations for the Red Cross and not taking any kind of fee. Don't get me wrong, I think that everyone who can, should give blood. But everyone's specific circumstances need to be respected.

Here's the link to the Amazon donation page.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 13, 2001.

I feel sorry for Jack Flesher, who's getting deluged with all these cyber-missles by email copy. What a week.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), September 13, 2001.

Hey everybody... Let's calm down, let's not start ripping each other up; that happens regularly in the LUG forum and most other chat- rooms, and the last thing I want to happen is to have this forum stoop down to those levels.

It was not my intention to set off a flame war. I posted here as a diversion to the madness in NY and in an attempt to latch on to the one commonality we all hold passionately -- the love of photography and the appreciation for Leica camera gear. Let's celebrate what we have in common, and continue to have rational discussions (and only polite disagreements) about Leicas and photography.

Thank you all for your inputs.

God bless,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 13, 2001.

Dan Blair (and all): I accept the criticism on the Midway Airlines comment. Clearly not even remotely comparable events, although Midway themselves said the travel lockdown was what put them over the edge.

Some passengers getting off the first Alitalia flight allowed into LAX from Canada reported All items were hand-searched before they reboarded, FWIW. I also have a picture I'm about to put in the newspaper of massive hand searches at Omaha as stranded passengers reboard.

IF carry-ons are allowed, to get back to Jack's original question; some ideas for enhancing speed, security, and the chance of a request for hand-search being approved: Small bag, limited amount of equipment loosely packed and easy to get to, unloaded bodies, "baggied' film.

Courage.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 13, 2001.

After a couple of badly thought-out angry e-mail's, decency has prevailed and Bob and I have apologized to each other.

This is truely one of the best and most friendly places on the net to discuss photography (or anything for that matter). And I'd hate to start bringing in the nastyness that wrecks that. Horrible events bring out strong emotions, even in the smallest of things.

For myself, and I think for Bob also, I can say that I'm sorry for my bad attitude in earlier posts.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 13, 2001.

:-)

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), September 13, 2001.

I have posted this afternoon a piece on The Luminous Landscape web site that discusses some of the things that photographers who travel with equipment should consider in light of the changed situation.

As more information on new regulations becomes available it will be updated.

http://luminous-landscape.com/flying.htm

Michael

-- Michael Reichmann (mreichmann@home.com), September 13, 2001.

Yes, Josh and I have made up ;-) It's strange, though I thought that living in Canada has somewhat distanced me from the events of the last few days, I found myself quite agitated and short tempered today. I think -the times they are a changin'-. Apologies to any who took offense to my earlier remarks.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), September 13, 2001.

Michael: Good Stuff!!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 13, 2001.

As of this moment, we've not been told we can't bring our cameras on board, or get our film hand-inspected. These issues are much less a problem just now, than finding an airplane to carry onto. My girlfriend and I are getting married at the end of this month, and have our tickets and B&B reservations in Vermont, to go shoot fall colors. I thought I'd bring two Leicas. Since Tuesday, neither Sue nor I has even voiced the possibility that we might not get onto our flights. We both know it's an issue, I'm sure, but I think we both realize that the risk we might not get to go is so trivial compared to what has happened, that it would be too selfish to bring it up.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 13, 2001.

In the wake of this fiendishly successful act of terrorism, there is going to be a lot of speculation about airport security in the future, ranging from the highly impractical (sky marshall on every plane???) to the unacceptable (no hand luggage whatsoever), through the unlikely (well paid, effective security personnel), to the probable (more x-rays, delays, and worthless documentation checks). Along the way ludicrous ideas will be brought up, such as giving all flight crew elementary lessons in suppressing armed passengers. (So you think an overweight pilot who vaguely remembers self-defence lessons from ten years ago in flight school is going to be a hero and take out an armed terrorist of the highest order, hand-chosen from his training companions for his particular aptitude with weapons, situational awareness, self-control, etc.? Hollywood would dump that on grounds of implausibility.) In the final analysis though, there are no methods that ensure safety from skyjacking, or even reduce its frequency or likelihood. Anyone dedicated enough to blow themselves up for their cause will treat security with contempt and will bypass any security dreamed up with impunity -- merely another evening’s planning during a period of preparation involving vastly greater problems than a couple of customs officials and the odd x-ray machine. The problem of airborne terrorism needs to be attacked at its root: why would someone willingly step forward to die, in order to kill thousands of innocent Americans? The answer is known to all who are honest with themselves, and the solution lies in the hands of the US government. The spin being delivered about this being an attack on "all the civilised world" is pure rubbish. If we could have asked the terrorists who they were attacking, who among us realistically thinks the answer would have been anything other than "imperialist America"?

And soon, NATO and America and Russia (after all, Afghanistan is a symbol of Soviet-era unsettled scores) will start bombing the world, and evil will attempt to destroy evil, and out of the countless wrecked lives that will result, evil will emerge triumphant with hate at its right hand. And Jane will still weep for her husband, and Muhannad will still mourn his friend, and Jennifer will still ask why the hell she had to grow up in a senseless world without a parent’s love.

But we’ll all be safe, don’t worry, because we’ll be eating airport meals with our fingers...

My head hurts. If someone can explain to me the correlation between airport security and airborne terrorism, bearing in mind that we're in the real world, I'd greatly appreciate it. My sincerest commiserations to all directly affected by the monstrous depravity of Tuesday.

-- Samuel Dilworth (samuel@dilworth3.fsnet.co.uk), September 13, 2001.

Oh dear....and just when I thought the flames were out...(sigh) 8^(

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 14, 2001.

You're right, Samuel. We are in the real world. In the real world tonight, in New York, 2 more teams were arrested on, or trying to get on, 2 more transcontinental flights. This was stopped because of improved security.

Do we think improved security will solve all the problems? Do you think we are that naive? Should we just not bother then?

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), September 14, 2001.

In answer to your question:

I just got home. I have been diverted and stranded and all of those good things. From actual experience, I can tell you what they are enforcing at the moment [this may change]. Note, not much is flying at the moment.

You may carry on what they define as a purse or a brief case. My soft camera bag had to be checked. I put it in a suitcase and surrounded it with clothes [I am too tired to see how it survived :)]. Don't know how this will change, but on the first day of the new security rules, that is what was enforced. I was on one of the first commercial flights to fly today.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), September 14, 2001.

By the way; in the previous statement, today was 13 sept. Just took that long to get home :).

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), September 14, 2001.

we are all quite sensitive yet, and I´m sure will be for long, I can imagine the world getting into a new era, my biggest hope is that this new era will be terrorism free.

Few hours ago I was watching TV with my girlfriend when electricity went off, it passed few hours until we had electricity again, that darkness and calm gave me the time to see what had been happening in the last three days; I just couldn´t belive how a success of this magnitude could had happen; I remembered the bombing in Harrod´s in 1983, and all that terrorism attacts we watch daily in the news; but this was something I have no words to, of course the rules to get a plane will change and radicalize, may be since I don´t have plans to travel soon, I don´t think about it; I think in a way and in any way we want to be part of the people who will figth against this sort of culture (terrorism is a culture); I want to understand it is a shared feeling, and I know I will do it with a camera in my hand around my kneck; that is also something we share here.

Lucky me I don´t need to worry how I´ll get my plane Jack, I just hope you get yours rigth.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.

Yes, many of the statements here sound, and probably are, egoistic; I don't exempt my previous one. But I think that tightening security easily reaches a point that signifies success of terror. As Michael Reichmann wrote in the short essay he has pointed us to (here), accepting extreme restrictions means "the terrorists will have won, and this they must not ever be allowed to do".

In Germany, the simple statement that the NATO as a whole was the target has put certain emergency regulations into action--by an automatism built into these regulations when they were passed in 1968. Power is a sweet poison whose consumption many office-holders never notice, so they love to pass restrictive acts as they give them the sensation of control. I pray that the western world may continue in democracy.

Pax et bonum,

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), September 14, 2001.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

Mr Dilworth's childish and immature notions declare him to be a coward. The idea that any violent response to evil is also evil is rubbish.

It is wonderful that Mr. Dilworth enjoy's the freedom to express himself in this forum. I wonder if it ever occurred to him how this freedom was obtained? Does he think Saddam would have left Kuwait if everyone would have sat in a circle, holding hands, and singing "Feelings?" And were his troops having consensual sex with the innocent women they were raping? And if they were to try to resist, would that act of violence be evil?

Mr. Dilworth may be free to spew his garbage here. Free speech comes with responsibility. When those notions are irresponsible, it is not bad manners to point them out.

-- David S Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), September 14, 2001.

Maybe an after effect of this tragedy is that this country (USA) will finally develop a reliable and comprehensive interstate passenger rail system. I'm not averse to flying, but most of the time I don't need to fly, it's just the only option. It has been a real eye-opener to see how the FAA shutdown and the new security regs have caused such turmoil.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

I will not be drawn into personal attacks (that truly would be "flaming"), but I will comment on some questions, although perhaps they were meant rhetorically.

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

That is very true (out of interest, who said that?). But I do not advocate doing nothing. I honestly feel there are better ways to get rid of terrorism than military oppression. It will take time, because anti-American feelings in the Middle East, and indeed throughout the world, are at an all-time high (or were, until a few days ago). But by leading the way in showing love, and by doing so implementing such international policy changes as necessary to allow peace to prevail in the Middle East and elsewhere, I think the world could once again have hope. Maybe I’m naively optimistic, maybe I have too much faith in most of humanity’s inherent desire to do good, but I say, how on earth are we going to justify more killings without first at least trying to solve our disputes amiably!! I don’t say this with pride, but if everyone in this world shared my feelings there would have been no WTC disaster, and no war in the Middle East. On the other hand, most people in this thread seem to be able to justify military killings to themselves, if I am understanding correctly?

Does he think Saddam would have left Kuwait if everyone would have sat in a circle, holding hands, and singing "Feelings?"

I would not compare independent terrorist acts to public military acts of a state. However, if you insist, no, I don’t think Saddam would have left Kuwait without military pressure being applied. At the same time, I don’t feel our respective countries’ continued military presence there is doing any good, and it is certainly doing an awful lot of harm. We call Tuesday an "act of war", but our weekly bombings in the Middle East are merely "peace enforcement" (work that oxymoron out yourself). The terms don’t make a difference to the thousands of innocent lives snuffed out in both locations, though.

As is often the case when strongly different views are being expressed, people become polarized into the extreme ends of their argument. I live in Northern Ireland and have seen first hand more terrorism than most people will ever hear about. I hate terrorism with a passion stronger than you are able to comprehend. The events of Tuesday are vile beyond words, and I think it would be fair to say I am angered by them more than most Americans. But violence leads to hatred being ingrained, as is so clearly demonstrated by the situation in my country today, and when the new anti-terrorism coalition starts killing more innocent people in frustration at not getting the terrorists themselves, yet more hate will be entrenched.

I firmly believe that no one, not even the world’s superpower, has the sovereignty to undermine the sanctity of human life.

I can but pray.

-- Samuel Dilworth (samuel@dilworth3.fsnet.co.uk), September 14, 2001.

I, for one, tend to agree with what Dilworth is writing. I don't know of any military or technological way to win a war with people who are willing to attack civilian targets with suicide bombers. As it has been opined in a German daly, all you can do is try not to lose as badly. I think we need to understand how it is that the US has become so hated in some parts of the world that voices of reason have given way to acts of extremism. A similar debate is happening here in the US- those who want swift military revenge, and those who don't- at least not w/o further deliberation. I fear that our sorrow and disgust will turn only into rage.

This might be of interest to some- an article in Salon on how to treat Bin Laden, if he is the culprit, more as a criminal, not an enemy in war.

While I don't know exactly how relevant this discussion still is to the Leica Photog. space, I hope that everyone will help maintain the civility and goodwill that really characterizes it above and beyond other places in cyberspace.

May all beings be happy

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), September 14, 2001.

Uh...hasn't that been going on in recent years, subsequent to the US embassy bombings and other acts of terrorism attributed to this jerk? Do we really think issuing a US warrant for criminal indictment will cause the international community to spring into action with a global manhunt? The response up to now has been a resounding yawn. US civil and criminal enforcement stops at the US border. Noone beyond that border is obligated to so much as fart in response.

Now he/they have escalated and stepped over the line. Escalated response is inevitable. Who said escalation means flying missles? A few isolated right wing, red neck Senators/Representatives? Gimme a break. I've been hearing that kind of knee-jerk, irrational, and inconsequential rhetoric for 50 years. Think outside the box.

I'm amused that so many in Afghanistan are running for cover, because I don't think that's the form US response will take. At least I hope not. I'm hoping - as hinted at in carefully worded statements so far - that US leaders are themselves thinking outside the box now. Time will tell.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), September 14, 2001.

Art: Thanks for the report from the trenches. I expect things will be in flux for weeks and months before a final policy becomes uniform at all airports. David Alan Harvey gets along with "one film, one camera, one lens." Travel light.

As to Mr. Dilworth, I'll stick to one comment. Either the pilot or the passengers of the flight over Pennsylvania, "overweight" or not, had the presence of mind to resist and at least limit the damage of that attack to themselves and an acre or so of corn, instead of (most likely) the heart of D.C.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 14, 2001.

That story, with the cell phone call quote that "the men had taken a vote and were going to try and take back the plane" is one of the most inspiring stories (to me) that has come out of this whole thing. While there is some talk pointing to the possibility that the military might have shot down the plane over Pennsylvania. It really doesn't matter to me. The fact that those men decided to take action against the terrorists, knowing full well that they would likely die, is an example of true heroism. And it's something I will look up to until the end of my days.

-- Josh Root (rootj@att.net), September 14, 2001.

Andy:

I checked my equipment and it all came through fine. I commonly travel with a Tamrac Expedition 3. It holds 6 lenses and a body and all of the other stuff that I carry. It is very heavily padded. It is also a back pack which helps when I am trekking into the wilds or running through an airport to make connections.

Your assessment is correct IMHO. As they checked in my flight, they were changing the rules as they went along. Probably just as well that I checked it. Some of my specialty filters often brought an inspection in the past. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), September 15, 2001.

Art:

Thanks for the confirmation. Also good point on the filters. Some like the Tiffen Enhancer have metallic coatings, and may create concern.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 15, 2001.

Jack:

Advice from someone who travels by air a lot. If you take the offending filters and screw them onto a lens, they aren't picked up. We aren't talking about doing anything dangerous here. We are talking about not wasting your time or the time of the security people; they have more important things to do than go through our filter collections. The only thing is identifying the offending filters. The last time they picked-up my B+W orange filter. I don't know why. They did know where it was in the case. :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), September 15, 2001.