>But they grumbled about how I should have a lead lined pouch.
Sort of funny in a way. I fail to see how a lead lined bag would help
matters since it would prevent the film from being x-rayed and would
necessitate a hand check anyway. How would that be any different that
putting the film in a baggie and asking for the hand check straight out? I
really think that you and others have run into instances of bureaucratic
ritualism and pragmatism which holds that you follow the rules to the letter
at any cost even if it is impractical so as to make your life easier, your
work more routine and standardized with less problems, and you have the
security of knowing that your ass is covered.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Karl
Schulmeisters
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:02 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Well whether or not the 'official process' has been followed is somewhat
irrelevant. I just got back from a multi-stop hop into, within and back
home from Europe. Here is what I found
I took all my film, put it in a ziplock baggy, and made sure I had some 1600
in there marked PUSH. With that I asked for hand inspection at all
airports. I had no problems (after pointing to the 1600) at
SeaTac and O'Hare outbound to Paris.
I had no problems in CDG (despite my attrocious french pronunciation of
'trois mille' whilst pointing at the films) outbound to Stuttgart
I had no problems Munich to Turin or Turin to CDG.
BUT outbound from CDG back to the USA, I had no problems UNTIL, they did a
final screening as part of the boarding process.
After much begging, arguing and pleading (and here their threat of 'do it
our way or get bumped' carried very real immediate consequences)
they agreed to let me not have all of the 1600 not scanned, as well as all
of the exposed 400 and 800. But they grumbled about how I should have a
lead lined pouch.
I think the trick is to carry your 1600 in a ziplock baggie. for your other
film either
a) put it in the lead lined pouch and run that through the hand-inspection
screening
or
b) get one of those office label makers that print on aluminized labels, and
print up markings for your film canisters that wrap the whole thing (just
like the private label film from places like COSTCO) but are all marked
1600. Leave the auto-speed parts unchanged so your camera knows what's
what. If need be, mark with a sharpie and apply another label.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
> Thank you.
>
> Art
>
> Doug Segar wrote:
>
> > At 04:21 PM 11/25/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote:
> >>
> >>>Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand
checking film provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception.
> >>>
> >>It is in no way clear that the Administrator has not done this. It is
difficult to find information on where the changes in security are being
issued from. For example, the FAA says that they (not the airlines) are now
restricting the number of bags, but try and find a government order on that.
I'm not sure where the provision for constant random baggage checks is that
now occur, either.
> >>
> >
> > Note that final revisions of regs post 09/11 (effective 11/14/2001) can
be found at
> >
> >
> >
> > The file is a large one but for those who do not wish to download it,
the essential point is that the provision on hand inspection of film
(including the critical word "shall") is unchanged and there is nothing in
the document that modifies "certificate holder" authority to change this
rule without direct authorization by the FAA Administrator .
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
>
>
>
