Guest viewing is limited
  • Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

  • Hi Guest - just to let you know that we performed some work on the forums recently. You may use this thread report any issues you encounter.

Cigarette lighters banned

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.

island_sands

Erection Supervisor ;)
Supporter
Jan 19, 2001
7,998
1,281
418
As of today... cigarette lighters are banned on all US flights.. so take your matches instead...

now, will someone explain this to me? (bdurrett.... bet you have a great explanation).

Are lighters all of a sudden equal to canned butane or something? how can they be less dangerous than a box of matches?

island_sands
housewife deluxe CNN watcher
 

sinkweight

fat flotilla
Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
1,005
287
138
45
Nice self-title. Looks good on the resume.

how can they be less dangerous than a box of matches?



Three months from now....

Sands passes throught the metal detector successfully, but is stopped by a Transportation Security Authority,

"Ma'am, are you carrying any lighters today?"

"No, just matches."

"Alright, just go on through the....woah....hold on.....are they Strike ANYWHERE matches?"

"Well, yeah."

"Ma'am I'm going to take your bags. If you could just step over to the side here and sit down next to the officer with the machine gun, please."



Three months after that, the same situation, but updated with more friendly, efficient security procedures...

"Hello,ma'am, and where are you flying to today?"

"Hawaii."

"Sounds nice. Please remove all your clothing while the canine unit searches for lighters, matches, flint rocks, and/or dry rubbing sticks and moss."
 

island_sands

Erection Supervisor ;)
Supporter
Jan 19, 2001
7,998
1,281
418
sinkweight said:
Three months after that, the same situation, but updated with more friendly, efficient security procedures...

"Hello,ma'am, and where are you flying to today?"

"Hawaii."

"Sounds nice. Please remove all your clothing while the canine unit searches for lighters, matches, flint rocks, and/or dry rubbing sticks and moss."

lol! soon we'll have to send our luggage separately, pre-inspected by sniffer dogs then shrink wrapped.

i am wondering about any other items they may start banning.. hmm if i think of what injuries i could cause with some of the items in my make-up bag.. rofl
 
  • Like
Reactions: sinkweight

island_sands

Erection Supervisor ;)
Supporter
Jan 19, 2001
7,998
1,281
418
Alison said:
mable.
Just a guess
Quick disclaimer: DeeperBlue will hold no responsibility for actions of any member or non member carrying out any of the above instructions and neither will I for that matter

lol good guess and very logical
i guess we could use that disclaimer on a few homemade items around here ;)
 

sinkweight

fat flotilla
Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
1,005
287
138
45
Sands said:
lol! soon we'll have to send our luggage separately, pre-inspected by sniffer dogs then shrink wrapped.
After you get on the plane, you'll have to stare down through your legs the whole flight...and down through the clear plexiglass floor, in which passengers will be required to keep an eye on their luggage the entire flight.

Mind that you don't get curious and look at the next person's luggage, because they'd have to make an emergency landing..

...if the F-16's haven't already been dispatched to intercept you.

Sands said:
i am wondering about any other items they may start banning.. hmm if i think of what injuries i could cause with some of the items in my make-up bag..
I wonder if a mascara brush, when properly utilized, could be fataly shoved up a pilot's nose!

Either that or maybe choke him by blowing rouge in his lungs while he's laughing at you for highjacking the plane with a compact makeup kit.

Serves him right, ladies.

Alison said:
A cigarette lighter could be used as a small explosive device that could breach the hull of the aircraft (just a thought, light it put an elastic band to hold the gas on and wedging it upside down against the hull), whereas matches are less effective as a terrorists tool as everything except for the passengers are non flamable.

Just a guess?...Jeez Louise, Alison....that's a pretty well thought out way of exploding a lighter. Please tell me you don't have a whiteboard at home with the same instructions...ha ha ha.

NOW I know why I never see your picture on this site.

You don't want the Feds on your trail.

hee hee
 
Last edited:

Poida

New Member
Feb 9, 2004
389
106
0
74
I think gas lighters have been banned here for ages. The pressure of the inards are greater than the outers and when you go to a higher altitute the pressure of its inards increase in relation to the pressure of the outers and could burst.
Probably why I keep farting during the flight.
 

drunkinbda

The boys are back in town
Jul 11, 2004
523
89
118
well..according to some sources of mine.. back when that guy had the explosives in his shoe... it was said that that amount wasnt enough to do much damage to the hull anyway, granted any damage is too much though. I think the security people are getting a lil carried away at this point though. from what ive heard you can only carry 1 book of matches with you too, not a couple.
 

island_sands

Erection Supervisor ;)
Supporter
Jan 19, 2001
7,998
1,281
418
sinkweight said:
I wonder if a mascara brush, when properly utilized, could be fataly shoved up a pilot's nose!

Either that or maybe choke him by blowing rouge in his lungs while he's laughing at you for highjacking the plane with a compact makeup kit.

Serves him right, ladies.

"This is Captain Nemo calling Ground Control"


"come in Captain Nemo"

"I AM BEING ATTACKED BY THE AVON LADY!!"
 
Last edited:

bdurrett

Colorado Transplant
Sep 19, 2002
1,383
255
0
57
OK all, here is the scoop....

(Sands is cheating - She knows my wife works for the German Air Traffic Control Authority)

IAW the new procedures, a passanger can carry up to 4 books of "normal" matches with them on a flight. Strike any-wheres are forbidden. Lighters of any type, either butane (pressurized) or zippo-style are forbidden on the plane period.

They have always been forbidden in baggage for the reason that they could start a fire in the hold, much the same as the reason that dive lights are not allowed in the hold (that is a [email protected]#@er! Dive lights are NOT allowed to be put into checked baggage - they have to be carried on and either the batteries or the bulbs removed)

The reason for the lighter ban is that, yes, Richard Reed (the shoe-bomber) tried to use a lighter and it was only the fact that his seatmates noticed him trying to set his feet on fire that he got caught. On the other hand, matches stink and everyone would know it 2 seconds after it was lit.

The amount of plastic explosive in his shoe was not a lot but it was considered to be enough to hole the hull since he was sitting by the window. At altitude, it takes next to nothing to turn a small hole into a huge hole. Because of the explosive deco, anything that is not nailed down becomes a piece of flying shrapnel that makes the little hole bigger. Anything that is relatively soft (like a human) gets sucked out like toothpaste being squished out of a tube. (Did you know that a 250 lb man can very easily fit through the window of an airplane at altitude? He never has to worry about dying from lack of O2 or hitting the ground because he is dead by the time he is outside the skin of the plane due to having about 90 % of his bones broken during his exit)

There ya go!
 
  • Like
Reactions: island_sands

anton

Well-Known Member
May 28, 2004
152
26
118
55
Just to play the devils advocate,

[...The reason for the lighter ban is that, yes, Richard Reed (the shoe-bomber) tried to use a lighter and it was only the fact that his seatmates noticed him trying to set his feet on fire that he got caught. On the other hand, matches stink and everyone would know it 2 seconds after it was lit.]

***If everyone is dozing, they can smell the match all they want, if a fuze is lit, its lit and they have little if no chance of crawling to the floor, finding it, and putting it out.

[The amount of plastic explosive in his shoe was not a lot but it was considered to be nough to hole the hull since he was sitting by the window. At altitude, it takes next to nothing to turn a small hole into a huge hole. Because of the explosive deco, anything that is not nailed down becomes a piece of flying shrapnel that makes the little hole bigger. Anything that is relatively soft (like a human) gets sucked out like toothpaste being squished out of a tube. (Did you know that a 250 lb man can very easily fit through the window of an airplane at altitude? He never has to worry about dying from lack of O2 or hitting the ground because he is dead by the time he is outside the skin of the plane due to having about 90 % of his bones broken during his exit)]

***Actually, this was recently tested (for the first time apparently!) live on television and shown to be an urban myth of sorts. They pressurized a jumbo cabin, placed a crash dummy in the window seat, taped a large WAD of plastic explosives to the side of the plane (inside) at the window and blew it up. Pretty cold to watch actually. While the air swirled about and went out a very small hole that was blown in the window area, the dummy stayed put and stuff did'nt get sucked out as is thought commonly (the plane was pressurized correctly, etc to simulate a jumbo at altititude) They tried twice more, 2nd time suceeded in blowing the window out but dummy still stayed put. The third time they used POUNDS of plastic explosive and blew the side and roof of the plane open. While the plane was a mess, the dummy was still in his seat with his belt fastened... although I believe his torso was missing at that point!

As some military types are aware, it takes a quite a powerful charge to breach an aircraft cabin.

As an American who has lived overseas for the past 20+ years I always find visits to the US the most invasive and ridiculous (although they do mean well). I am always checked extensively (more so than my foreign wife) for flights within the US and originating in the US ("ma'am, please proceed to your gate...WHOA sir, please go to room three and wait for an available agent").

Travel to the US however, from most third world countries and security is lax at best, especially if you stand out from the local populace. This is true expecially when travelling from the middle east which always amazes me. I assume they rely heavily on the pre-boarding checks, visa's already secured, passenger boarding list checks, etc. although as a security professional, it still scares the be-jesus out of me and makes all the stateside checks seem rather... pointless.
 
Last edited:

sinkweight

fat flotilla
Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
1,005
287
138
45
To be purgatory's advocate,

The Jumbo cabin (I'm supposing we're talking about a 747 or a 777 or an equal sized plane, would have to be at actual altitude, and flying, to get the same effect as a real explosion/hull breach scenario. I have a feeling that it was the Transportation industry trying to put ease to a very scary scenario.

When a plane is static on the ground, pressurized as it would be at altitude, it is just a pressure filled tube in a slightly less dense atmosphere. Also, it isn't under the constant barrage of a kabatic-style slipstream. I can tell you that a 747/777/Airbus is a strong, venerably rigid structure, even for a partially stressed-skin aircraft. However, if it's flying at 40,000 feet, the conditions are far from the test conditions. There is very, very, very little air pressure. Without the special alloys used in its monocoque rings, the plane would be very prone to coming apart in major stress loaded areas, from the strain of containing a barely less than sea-level barometric pressure in such a void atmosphere, let alone an explosive incident.

This, combined with a laminar air flow slipping relatively unobstructed over the outside surface, makes for an even lower air pressure pulling on the skin of the craft once the nose of the plane has plowed its way through the thin, but resistant, air mass. I'm sure you've cracked, or partially rolled down a window, while driving on the highway. You get that flutter of buffeting wind on the trailing side of the window frame, and a oscillating drop in pressure inside the car. One typically has to equalize to the sudden drop. You're probably only going about 70 mph, and the car's aerodynamics were designed where it will cause the least amount of discomfort for windows-down driving at such speeds.

In large transport aircraft, the air pressure wants to equalize by whatever means necessary. And you're now going on average 530 to 580 mph. At an altitude of even 35,000, if there were even a small stress related failure, or perhaps a shoe-bomb related explosion (I think it's quiet bizarre that shoe-bomb is now a society-accepted term), The relatively dense pressure would open whatever hole to a good size. The enlarged breach, in collaberation with the windspeed peeling back more of the the outwardly shredded hide of the aircraft, almost instantly would create such a forcefull equalization, that I can easily imagine some of the adjoining seats, floor surface, carry-on compartments, and various electrical systems being ripped like weed roots from the point of hull failure...as it's happened in several (non-explosive incidences) before.

Now, for the sake of the cigarette lighter experiment, I'd have to put my money on the airplane's resilience...unless perhaps a malicious person were to remember place the overheating lighter between the hull of the plane and a non-shock-absorbing item, such as a metal briefcase. This would give the relatively small blast some "oomph". Remember that dynamite doesn't do all that much, unless it's strapped tight against something, and does even more damage if it's tucked inside a dense mass....like dropping a quarter stick inside a hole drilled in quarry rock.

In summary, there aren't that many bad people out there, but it only takes one to give everyone a crappy time from then on. As far as an explosion in a "test" experiment goes, the plane is pretty tough. But given real conditions, there is a lot of almost-chaotic conditions for something to go really wrong. Companies build planes for comfort and durability, not terrorists. Plane safety isn't determined by the grace of God or Gods. A lighter isn't much of a weapon, unless used to the best of its advantage, which isn't an easy task sneakily execute.

I worry more about a malcontent chemist giving a no-goodnick a large, precisely timed chemically detonated, household-chemical bomb to store in the bay of an airliner.

Sorry for being so wordy and grim.
 
Last edited:

bdurrett

Colorado Transplant
Sep 19, 2002
1,383
255
0
57
anton said:
***If everyone is dozing, they can smell the match all they want, if a fuze is lit, its lit and they have little if no chance of crawling to the floor, finding it, and putting it out.

True.....

***Actually, this was recently tested (for the first time apparently!) live on television and shown to be an urban myth of sorts. They pressurized a jumbo cabin, placed a crash dummy in the window seat, taped a large WAD of plastic explosives to the side of the plane (inside) at the window and blew it up. Pretty cold to watch actually. While the air swirled about and went out a very small hole that was blown in the window area, the dummy stayed put and stuff did'nt get sucked out as is thought commonly (the plane was pressurized correctly, etc to simulate a jumbo at altititude) They tried twice more, 2nd time suceeded in blowing the window out but dummy still stayed put. The third time they used POUNDS of plastic explosive and blew the side and roof of the plane open. While the plane was a mess, the dummy was still in his seat with his belt fastened... although I believe his torso was missing at that point!

Actually... sort of true....

1) If the person is buckled in, they will stay put. It is the unsecured stuff that goes out the hole including the soft, squishy body IF it is unsecured.
2) I saw this test and there were some serious problems with it. First, the so-called pressurized plane -> A NORMAL airframe is designed to contain a certain amount of air pressue (positive pressure) in relation to the outside pressure. In order to pressurize the plane to have an equivelent interior to exterior pressure ratio (remember that we are talking about a relative air pressure differential of 7000' interior pressure at between 32000 and 40,000 feet), the cabin would have had to have been pressurized to about 3 atmospheres. The air system about the plane couldn't cope with providing that much pressure and I am not sure that the hull would have withstood it, depending on the air frame (make/model/year of the air frame)
3) the aircraft int eh test was not moving. A normal airplane that is cruising along at 700 kph or more has one he|| of a complicated wind profile that, once you disturb the smooth skin, gets VERY violent and ugly, VERY quickly. That tends to do a lot more damage in and of itself, not to mention adding to the negative pressure profile. An example in real life is the rear spoiler on a Formula 1 car. It has 2 purposes, to keep the cars rear anchored to the track and to reduce the amount of air turbulance (cavitation) right behind the car which would slow the car by creating a low pressure region right behind the car.

As some military types are aware, it takes a quite a powerful charge to breach an aircraft cabin.

10 years USN including 5 working with the US Secret Service, taken EOD courses in recognition of explosives, worked for a company that does the structural air frame testing for all Airbus aircraft (you ought to see what they do to airplane wings - YIKES!).

For example, they estimate that it took 24 ounces of C4 to take Pan Am 147 (Lockerbie) out of the air and that blast was in the baggage compartment cushioned by all the bags. It doesn't take much to rupture the hull in the right place and a small rupture often leads to a catastrophic failure in the surrounding area.

Cheers,
Bret
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sinkweight

sinkweight

fat flotilla
Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
1,005
287
138
45
Lighters ok. Planes so-so. Terrorists bad.

I could've saved a lot of time on that one...sorry.
 

sinkweight

fat flotilla
Supporter
Aug 16, 2004
1,005
287
138
45
Ah-ha!

BD! An experienced voice of reason! I've seen a wingloading test done on a C-17 with my friend and his dad. Part of a factory exhibition. Most every Boeing can do veritable jumping-jacks with their wings and spars. In fact, the latest model of 747 has it's outermost engine nacelles moved closer toward the end of the wings now. This makes the weight of the engines counterbalance the wingtip lift, therefore allowing the spar thickness to be decreased to some extent. So now the new Jumbos wings sag once their on the ground.

I guess I didn't relay the idea that I don't think a shoe bomb would've hurt anything but passengers....except if there weren't anyone get to the impending fire in time afterwards.
 

bdurrett

Colorado Transplant
Sep 19, 2002
1,383
255
0
57
In Ottobrunn, Germany, there is a test facility where they test structural parts of air frames with the BIGGEST set of hydraulic presses you can imagine. Well, long enough to put the wing of an A380 with 20 meters to spare! I saw a test of an A340 wing where, before the skin started stress-fracturing, the wing was bent a total of 8 meters in the middle (in other words, it looked like a large U with the middle being 8 meters or 24 feet below the ends of the wing. Now an A340 wing is about 25 meters long so you can picture what it looked like). Once it started fractureing though, it went like a bomb and kinked/folded. It would have been equivilent to having the body of the aircraft pushed down 50 feet while the wing tips remained in place..... ain't gonna happen in real flight......
 

drunkinbda

The boys are back in town
Jul 11, 2004
523
89
118
man i swear.. i got to 1 full day of work..and there is enough writing here to do up a book!!

and the Myth Busters show rocks!!!!
 
DeeperBlue.com - The Worlds Largest Community Dedicated To Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing

ABOUT US

ISSN 1469-865X | Copyright © 1996 - 2021 deeperblue.net limited.

DeeperBlue.com is the World's Largest Community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving, Spearfishing and Diving Travel.

We've been dedicated to bringing you the freshest news, features and discussions from around the underwater world since 1996.

ADVERT