Is it the job of airport security to weigh passenger's cabin baggage?

[drron]

If all thinks are equal, what difference does it make? They both weigh the same...

Back to school for you.A soft bag of socks would spread out over your head diminishing the pressure applied at any one point.A hard case with lead would not meaning a higher pressure at a smaller point= more likely to crack your skull.

 

[mannej]

Back to school for you.A soft bag of socks would spread out over your head diminishing the pressure applied at any one point.A hard case with lead would not meaning a higher pressure at a smaller point= more likely to crack your skull.

Sorry drron, I am not disagreeing with you, I am just taking it back to year 10 physics stating that if we had 12kg's of socks, and 12 kgs of lead, and ignored the variables, the impact would be the same. (I.e ton of feathers v ton of bricks argument)

I am well aware of the impulse, and its bearing to the injuries that one might sustain if hit by the lead. As an aside, would you be able to fit 12kgs of socks in a legally sized carry-on bag?

Not back to school for me just yet!

 

[Happy Trails]

Meanwhile, if you were so inclined, you could just buy your overweight baggage from the airside shops.

 

[medhead]

Just a small point that many here seem to be overlooking is that every item of freight is covered by the Dangerous Goods Regulations. They must be 'inspected' to ensure that they are OR are not Dangerous Goods in accordance with the regulations.

Maybe, but then there are also labelling and shipping documentation requirements. So in practice and from a practical POV I'm not sure that there would be many "inspections" besides ensuring that packages match the shipping documents and declarations.

 

[Aussie_flyer]

so after 9 pages of banter, I still believe it is the airlines job, and not the bloke standing at security who should decide what my airline will allow me to take on board.

(the obvious exceptions are security restricted items)

 

[mannej]

so after 9 pages of banter, I still believe it is the airlines job, and not the bloke standing at security who should decide what my airline will allow me to take on board.

(the obvious exceptions are security restricted items)

Whilst I am not disagreeing with you on the matter, perhaps the airlines have an agreement with the security company in order to do so.

I feel that to enforce the correct limits is a logistic night mare, and any method that can enforce the limits whilst not slowing down the boarding process is probably to be encouraged. Internationally, SQ has always weighed my carry-on at checkin and provided an approved check-in tag. Whilst it may add a minute or two onto the check in process, this may help stop the bottle neck later on in the chain.

FWIW I have never had a problem with the man at the door at PER, although my bag is deceptive in how much it can fit in

 

[djfuzz]

Sorry drron, I am not disagreeing with you, I am just taking it back to year 10 physics stating that if we had 12kg's of socks, and 12 kgs of lead, and ignored the variables, the impact would be the same. (I.e ton of feathers v ton of bricks argument)

Ah, but in the real world, you can't 'ignore the variables' and reduce everything to a year 10 physics problem!

My year 11 physics suggests that the issue raised is about pressure on the skull, which is directly related to the impact of the drop (of which weight is but a factor, combined with surface area and in this case, the distance of the drop - and throw in some friction for good measure).

Respectfully, I must agree with drron.

 

[mannej]

Ah, but in the real world, you can't 'ignore the variables' and reduce everything to a year 10 physics problem!

My year 11 physics suggests that the issue raised is about pressure on the skull, which is directly related to the impact of the drop (of which weight is but a factor, combined with surface area and in this case, the distance of the drop - and throw in some friction for good measure).

Respectfully, I must agree with drron.

There is no argument from me. There are those even if things get eased down to a Yr10 level, will still believe that a ton of bricks is heavier than a ton of feathers.:mrgreen:

I guess 12kgs of anything dropping onto my noggin would leave me a nice headache

 

[Will]

I guess 12kgs of anything dropping onto my noggin would leave me a nice headache

E=mv^2.

Velocity is a much more significant factor than mass!

 

[Flashback]

E=mv^2.

Velocity is a much more significant factor than mass!

mv or mc? :shock:

 

[Dave Noble]

mv or mc? :shock:

Kinetic Energy = ½ mv^2

 

[MEL_Traveller]

another 'could have, might have, wouldn't it be terrible if' thread. Two posters say they have seen an overhead bag fall out. In my hundred or so flights over the last 18 months I have seen only a hat fall out of an overhead locker.

Every year over a 1000 people DIE on our roads, but we haven't banned cars. I see the risk of something hitting me in a plane as negligible compared to driving.

Until the risk of being hit in a plane increases i can't see there is anything to worry about. I'm not going to advocate inconveniencing millions of passengers for the one or two that might get hurt.

it also seems 'safety' is related to your class of travel in many cases. Fly First and all of a sudden the safety element (per the airline's perspective) seems to go out the window.

Just like the 'safety' of not assigning exit row seats. It's no longer a safety aspect now they can charge for it.

On Easyjet the cabin allowance is 10kgs, on BA it is unspecified, you can take what you like provided you can lift the bag yourself.

What this is leading to is that I'm all for enforcing rules if they are (a) sensible and (b) they are transparent.

I don't see airline rules limiting carry-on to 7kgs as transparent because plenty of other airlines have higher limits. I see the 7kg rule as a revenue issue. If it was truly safety related then every airline would be the same (occ healthy and safety and the unions would DEMAND it).

[As for using google... the only problem that comes with that is people being unable to filter the results. Of course lawyers use google... it is one of the fasest ways of being able to find legislation. Making sure you have the RIGHT legislation is what all the training is for... ]

 

[serfty]

Ek = [u]mv²[/u]
      2

 

[Will]

Ek = [u]mv²[/u]
      2

Thanks for the code! Couldn't find the "is proportional to" symbol before so I simplified...
Or else imagine that I wrote e=mv^2 where m=mass in 2kg or E is in half-joules

 

[Dave Noble]

it also seems 'safety' is related to your class of travel in many cases. Fly First and all of a sudden the safety element (per the airline's perspective) seems to go out the window.

There I disagree. The limits if using overheads should be the same ( and are published as such ). With airline I tend to use for 1st travel, the issue is different since the luggage is on the floor ( no overhead lockers ) and so nowhere to fall onto

Just like the 'safety' of not assigning exit row seats. It's no longer a safety aspect now they can charge for it.

Not really. There is a safety issue but now they verify the suitability of the passenger at a later time rather than requiring to see before assigning

Dave

 

[UP4014]

Whilst I am not disagreeing with you on the matter, perhaps the airlines have an agreement with the security company in order to do so.

I feel that to enforce the correct limits is a logistic night mare, and any method that can enforce the limits whilst not slowing down the boarding process is probably to be encouraged. Internationally, SQ has always weighed my carry-on at checkin and provided an approved check-in tag. Whilst it may add a minute or two onto the check in process, this may help stop the bottle neck later on in the chain.

FWIW I have never had a problem with the man at the door at PER, although my bag is deceptive in how much it can fit in

Wouldn't the agreement have to be with the airport, not the security company which is engaged by the airport.

Can anyone see airports taking on responsibility and therefore risk? (from the airlines)

Matt

 

[medhead]

Thanks for the code! Couldn't find the "is proportional to" symbol before so I simplified...
Or else imagine that I wrote e=mv^2 where m=mass in 2kg or E is in half-joules

I'm glad you corrected that equation the E=mv^2 is really only used in an atomic sense, such as for mass energy equivalence. It also probably only works when v is constant, i.e. that v=c (the velocity of light)

for a bag flying around an aircraft cabin, newtonian physics is adequate to describe the motion, as per the corrected equation. Still velocity is 4 times as important as mass. But in general the velocity will be limited by the rate of acceleration due to gravity. Assuming that the aircraft doesn't fall at the rate of gravitiational acceleration, leaving the bag suspended in "mid-air" and then suddenly (quickly enough to give the passenger significant upward velocity) start to climb sometime after the bag has attained terminal velocity. Hence creating the conditions for maximum impact on the passengers head.

Finally the discussion of soft luggage versus hard luggage has been very interesting. I do think it has focussed to much on the issue of the luggage making a big hole in someones head and not considered the effect on the spine and neck of the force of 12kg hitting a head.

 

[mannej]

Finally the discussion of soft luggage versus hard luggage has been very interesting. I do think it has focussed to much on the issue of the luggage making a big hole in someones head and not considered the effect on the spine and neck of the force of 12kg hitting a head.

Thats a bit too advanced for me... I'm still trying to come to terms with Yr11 physics

In all seriousness, the potential for injury is a complex topic, as there are so many variables to deal with, and IMHO I would rather not be hit at all socks or no socks

 

[markis10]

Came across this publication which is now three years old but has some pertinent points in it in relation to the legislation for screening in general, it would be interesting to see an update done by the learned publisher with content on the moves to add baggage weight screening into the mix.

Screening and `frisk searches' as part of airport security: Matters of choice? The need for `checks and balances' in aviation security legislation - [2007] QUTLJJ 14

At far as I can tell we dont have a similar law to that in the states that mandates screening, so the OPs question is very much a valid one, while most if not all of us agree there should be limits in cabin baggage which are enforced, it would appear the legislative framework in place by our caretaker government seems to be as solid as the home insulation program, the BER, the emissions scheme etc etc, perhaps Julia or Tony may wish to have a closer look at FAR 121.589 :

Sec. 121.589 - Carry-on baggage.

(a) No certificate holder may allow the boarding of carry-on baggage on an airplane unless each passenger's baggage has been scanned to control the size and amount carried on board in accordance with an approved carry-on baggage program in its operations specifications. In addition, no passenger may board an airplane if his/her carry-on baggage exceeds the baggage allowance prescribed in the carry-on baggage program in the certificate holder's operations specifications.

(b) No certificate holder may allow all passenger entry doors of an airplane to be closed in preparation for taxi or pushback unless at least one required crewmember has verified that each article of baggage is stowed in accordance with this section and §121.285 (c) and (d).

(c) No certificate holder may allow an airplane to take off or land unless each article of baggage is stowed:

(1) In a suitable closet or baggage or cargo stowage compartment placarded for its maximum weight and providing proper restraint for all baggage or cargo stowed within, and in a manner that does not hinder the possible use of any emergency equipment; or

(2) As provided in §121.285 (c) and (d); or

(3) Under a passenger seat.

(d) Baggage, other than articles of loose clothing, may not be placed in an overhead rack unless that rack is equipped with approved restraining devices or doors.

(e) Each passenger must comply with instructions given by crewmembers regarding compliance with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (g) of this section.

(f) Each passenger seat under which baggage is allowed to be stowed shall be fitted with a means to prevent articles of baggage stowed under it from sliding forward. In addition, each aisle seat shall be fitted with a means to prevent articles of baggage stowed under it from sliding sideward into the aisle under crash impacts severe enough to induce the ultimate inertia forces specified in the emergency landing condition regulations under which the airplane was type certificated.

(g) In addition to the methods of stowage in paragraph (c) of this section, flexible travel canes carried by blind individuals may be stowed --

(1) Under any series of connected passenger seats in the same row, if the cane does not protrude into an aisle and if the cane is flat on the floor; or

(2) Between a nonemergency exit window seat and the fuselage, if the cane is flat on the floor; or

(3) Beneath any two nonemergency exit window seats, if the cane is flat on the floor; or

(4) In accordance with any other method approved by the Administrator.

 

[medhead]

Thats a bit too advanced for me... I'm still trying to come to terms with Yr11 physics

In all seriousness, the potential for injury is a complex topic, as there are so many variables to deal with, and IMHO I would rather not be hit at all socks or no socks

Indeed. And I'd rather not even be hit by 7 kg.