Are you flying out of Detroit City airport? Or DTW (aka Metro Airport)
If it's City airport, ::shudders:: good luck.
If it's Detroit Metro (which is actually in Romulus) the wait probably won't be that bad at all. I know you always have to leave that big window to make sure, but that last few times I've been through there it wasn't that bad at all. The security is rather efficient.
I'm guessing you're in Canada right now if you're talking about crossing the border. I'd be more concerned about delays at the border than at the airport. Hope you don't hit any snags, good luck
I'm flying out of DTW. I fly out of DTW for almost all of my air travel to points west of here (Sarnia, about 1.5 hours north of Detroit on the Canadian side of the border). I've never had a major holdup at DTW, but I've had holdups at the border on my way that nearly caused me to miss flights. So this time, I'm leaving work at 2:30 PM for a 9 PM flight (with a 20-minute stop for an oil change before heading to the border), and I haven't packed any liquids or gels (I have, however, packed my iPod). Hopefully between possible border holdups and possible airport holdups I'll still have time to read a bit more of Greg Bear's Eon at the airport. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, of course you don't want perscription eyedrops, but your doctor should be able to write you a prescription for regular eyedrops. If you have it written out on a prescriptions pad and signed by the doctor that you need to carry saline eyedrops with you due to an eye condition (dry eyes on planes is a condition, neh?) then you should be fine. Or, you know, you could wear your glasses. . . Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
We have people at work bring in prescriptions for different chairs all the time. Or a seat near a window, due to SAD. (Although if that one is not possible to accomodate we give them a full-spectrum light, instead.) Or trackballs or touchpads instead of mice, or split keyboards, or whatever. So I'm used to seeing prescriptions for things other than prescription medication.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Awww, c'mon Twinky. There's hours and hours left before you need to leave and how long will packing take, anyway? Mere minutes at most. You can get it done anytime, no worries!
*twirls mustache*
*giggling
Rakeesh, you're positively diabolical. I hair your snide whiplash!
----
I'm quite comfortable with obliging any of these sorts of restrictions for any length of time. If I can't abide by them, I just won't go.
(Part of me thinks that the very availability of travel leads to social pressures to travel, and -- being an introvert -- ready-made excuses are my cuppa. YMMV, of course, especially dependent on your own Hermit Factor.)
Posts: 132 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Think they'll let you through if you just soak some cotton balls in moisturizer?
I completely missed this!
Hmm. I dunno. I'll have to think about how I could pack that so it WOULDN'T look like "suspicious blobs in a baggie" . . .
*sigh* I really wish they had followed one expert's suggestion and allowed containers holding less than one ounce. The eye drops are like .2 oz, and I think the hand lotion is .5 oz. I don't want BIG containers of the stuff!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, how about slathering some lotion on, putting on the absorby-cotton gloves to lube them up, and then putting said gloves in your pockets? I bet you could tuck them in pockets or the waistband of your skirt without problems, especially if they have no metal parts to trip a sensor.
If you are searched and they are found, they really wouldn't be "liquids," and if you had to give them up, it wouldn't be a great financial loss.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a definite thought. And I have three or four pairs of the gloves, so the chance of losing one is not that big a deal.
(Although I'm almost tempted to go with a baggie of lotioned cotton balls, another full of salt, and when I get strip-searched for carrying suspicious items, blame y'all. )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could also go with the "smear Vaseline 1/2 inch thick all over your arms and hands just before the security checkpoint, touch their nice shiny equipment, assume "Whaaaa????" expression" tactic.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Bedecked in baggies full of odd soggy white lumps and suspicious white crystals, and coated in a layer of Vaseline thick enough to ensure my hands would freeze instantly if immersed in liquid nitrogen, I get stopped by security.
"Ma'am, what do you think you're doing?"
"Well, I have these friends. Online, you know? And they said I should do this."
"And you're travelling where today?"
"Washington, D.C."
"I see. Come with me, please."
Will you all write me letters in jail?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: No. I don't think my parents would approve of me having a prison pen-pal. Sorry.
So you won't write me if I get detained at the border or airport tonight and wind up in a Jordanian prison at the behest of the U.S. government?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you stuck your hand in liquid nitrogen, wouldn't it "burn" you? By "freeze instantly," are you talking Demolition Man freezing where your hand instantly turns into a brittle chunk of ice?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to get back on topic or anything, but if anyone wants to think good thoughts for me on Wednesday/Thursday, I'll be flying through London Gatwick.
Without my CD player. Without my books. Without my cookies.
Hey, but at least I'll have tampons.
Posts: 3932 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, do you think they'll let me take about 80 pounds of water on board? If gasses are restricted as well, should I declare the N2/O2 mix I always carry in my suitcases?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Back on a serious note--we're flying to Orlando tomorrow, and my mom's a diabetic. It shouldn't be a problem getting insulin on the plane--the trouble is that it has to be cold, and most cold-pack type things use gels or liquids. So, we're not quite sure what's going to happen.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, wouldn't it be easier to just wear your glasses for the fights?
I do wonder about medications. People should really carry on their meds in case their luggage gets lost. People with medical conditions, I mean. That's a lot of people carrying on suspicious little bottles. How are they going to check all that out? My mom has tons of Very Important eyedrops for her glaucoma. I suppose they could make her put a drop on her skin. She can't put a drop in her eye on their request, though, unless she's due for the medication. A drop on her tongue? Probably not a good idea. Seems like no matter how careful they are, unless they take hours with people, someone could sneak in something in prescription bottles.
And not letting kids play or eat is going to cause most flights to experience a lot of flight stress.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an agent in the organization, I heard. He was trusted by the group and was able to give tons of information to the authorities.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insulin will be fine on the plane, the cabins are temp-controlled enough that it certainly won't go bad on the flight.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right--I didn't notice that comment. Insulin doesn't have to be kept cold all the time. It lasts longer if it is stored in the fridge, but an air-conditioned trip is no problem. Don't even try taking along something to keep it cool. Waste of space and energy.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by K_heron: How did they find out about the plot, anyway? I haven't heard them talk about that on the news.
On NPR this morning there was an interview in which it was mentioned that they discovered this plot as a result of investigations from the London bombings last summer. A neighbor of one of last summer's terrorists reported, when police were investigating those bombings, having seen suspicious activity. It turned out to have been related to the foiled attacks.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Theca: Rivka, wouldn't it be easier to just wear your glasses for the fights?
Considering that I wear 30-day contacts specifically so I don't have to deal with taking the things out and putting 'em in all the time . . . and I was only partly joking about not liking to wear my glasses in public . . .
I read this last night and it is really spooky. This was written pre-9/11:
quote:But while the FBI remains concerned about lone gunmen, the real action these days is with mass-murder terrorist actions. And once again, a contributing factor is the ready availability of destructive technology. In just the past decade, terrorists set off a car bomb in the World Trade Center in New York City, killing six people, injuring thousands, and causing $500 million in damage. Timothy McVeigh blew up a car bomb outside the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and killed hundreds.
Kallstrom believes that it's entirely possible that a single terrorist attack will kill more than 10,000 people sometime within the next 30 years. "I am not going to predict it, but I think that it would be naive to say it isn't possible," he says. And if it happens, he says, there will be a tremendous backlash on the part of lawmakers and the public to pass draconian laws and institute a virtual police state to make sure that such an attack never happens again.
"Legislators and lawmakers generally don't react to things without a body count and the prediction of a body count--they don't want to hear about it. They want to see the body count. It is not good enough to feel the door and feel that it is warm; you have to have smoke coming from under the door. . . . As we move to this new millenium, the risk of this mentality is terrible." Instead of waiting for the body count and a resulting Congressional attack on civil liberties, says Kallstrom, the United States needs to start preparing now for the unthinkable.
After reading the chapter, I have no idea why terrorists target airplanes. It is like cat and mouse. They are trying their hardest to disrupt something we are trying our hardest to protect. But it clearly isn't our weakest vulnerability.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. I've been living in South Korea for the past year, and am going home in 2 weeks. I was going to bring an awful lot carry-on, including my laptop. Now what do I do? Stuff my laptop into a luggage case and pick up the pieces after my 24 hour flight? Bloody hell.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Airplanes are closed systems, and airborne. Even without using them as missiles, it is far easier (in terms of say, pounds of explosives) to take out an airplane (and every single passenger) than a train or large building. Also, in a building, it is too easy for people to get out, and security/cops to get in.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Never mind that the Boeing 767 was escorted to Boston by fighter jets (what we used to call "air rage" has become a full-blown national emergency); the idea of hand cream and matches -- hand cream and matches -- becoming the focus of a TSA press conference, is clear evidence enough that our security hysteria has become unmanageable.
quote:It's difficult to tell how long the new prohibitions will last, or to what scope they might be expanded, but the rumblings are ominous. According to officials at TSA, the ban on liquids and gels is set to last indefinitely. Rumors have surfaced that laptop computers and other electronic devices could soon be restricted as well. Is airport security about to experience another, even more powerful paradigm shift than we saw in the aftermath of Sept. 11, resulting in even greater hassle than we're already used to? It's disheartening to think so, but certainly the stars are lining up that way.
quote:The X-ray machine and metal detector are what they are: a serviceable final line of defense, chiefly helpful for keeping obvious weapons -- a handgun, for example -- away from commercial aircraft. They are not, and we should not expect them to be, front-line anti-terror tools.
quote:The safety vs. convenience tradeoff makes for an effective sound bite, but in truth it's a slippery slope that traps us in an unwinnable shell game: In the aftermath of Sept. 11 our focus on was sharp objects, until a renegade Brit named Richard Reid wore his explosive sneakers past guards at Charles de Gaulle. Now it's sharp objects, sneakers and liquids too. With Bojinka in mind, shouldn't we also outlaw light bulbs, cotton balls, batteries and watches, since those were critical elements in Ramzi Yousef's microbombs? Some would say yes. Some are saying yes. Where to draw the line?
Reasoned thinking isn't good enough for a segment of the populace obsessed with safety and the specter of terrorists. We expect that every flicker of our color-coded alert will be met with more and more layers of protection -- even when that protection drives us crazy, and even when it serves no useful purpose. We are following this path deeper and deeper into absurdity.
quote:In contrast to previous reports, one senior British official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The article also goes onto to discuss US pressure applied to the UK to make immediate arrests.
One question - if they were really so worried about this 'threat' of dangerous liquids, why were the officials just dumping liquids into large open plastic containers right there in public? Surely the limited options a terrorist would have to discreetly arm & detonate a bomb while on a plane indicates fairly simple proceedures for doing so? Such as, mixing two materials or exposing a particular material to water or air. So if there really was an imminent threat, with security staff fully informed of the problem, why the casual method of 'disposal'?
Here's an interesting take on some of the possibilities:
Without taking this as the be-all and end-all of chemistry and bomb-making, this article talks about ways in which explosive/flammable materials could be prepared for avoiding screening and why the current restrictions are utterly ridiculous given what we've been told about the supposed bomb materials so far.
Although no doubt some on this forum would use this as proof that the current restrictions don't go far enough.
Personally I think we're all crazy. I think we're crazy to think that any of this makes us 'safe', crazy that we don't object with all our might to the massive interference in our lives and the obvious scare-mongering perpetuated by our respective governments.
I'm not saying there's no threat, that there's no terrorists, that there's no danger. But I don't believe our governments are being honest with us. I believe they are using these events as further excuses to extend control over our lives and invade our privacy.
And I think we're crazy if we keep letting the wool be pulled over our eyes by our respective goverments.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
Airport security isn't security, it is airport theatrics. If a terrorist wanted to kill lots of people, all they have to do is blow themselves up in the line waiting to get through security!
This guy explains it so well:
"We can't keep weapons out of prisons. How can we ever hope to keep them out of airports?" - Bruce Schneier
"We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes." - Bruce Schneier
Click on his name to read the articles, which go into so much more depth.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troubador: they could even use the 'large vat' approach to security to detonate a fairly big bomb: have a sequence of terrorists go through, each with a relatively small amount of a liquid that's explosive when combined with a small amount of another liquid, resulting in a large amount of that in the vat. Then have one terrorist go in with the detonating liquid.
And if someone just wanted to be disruptive there are various high school-level ways to make the airport stink, significantly delaying traffic. Or they could toss some cesium in a dissolving enclosure into the vat (quick and easy bomb). Repeat at lots of airports to create maximum disruption.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
at both of you.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
