More TSA nonsense

[ScottM]

I'm a law breaker; they took my shaving cream today! When the agent at the scanner called for a bag check, I knew my goose was cooked. I became very hard of hearing, moved kinna slow and hunched over. The lady was nice enough to repeat a couple times that the shaving cream can was too big...huh, sorry, I don't hear well. She just finally took the shaving cream and told me to be on my way.

What fun. After packing, traveling to the airport at zero dark thirty and almost stripping at the gate, and going through all the hoopla to get outta the airport, I have to add a stop at the grocery store to get shaving cream before I can get on my way.

I'll give you some shaving cream...right in the old.....

Best,

Dave

Just pick up some of the travel size shaving cream

I get these at the local drug mart and they go through with no problems. Just keep it in you 1qt anti-terror bag with your other non-terrorist liquids.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Where ya headed, Dave? (Don't you own a P-Baron? )

P-Baron is in annual! Gaston's was the last flight before that was scheduled. Also, I hate to admit this, but round trip on an RJ was almost what it cost to run the baron one hour. Direct flight. Hard to justify the baron right now in that case.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Just pick up some of the travel size shaving cream

I get these at the local drug mart and they go through with no problems. Just keep it in you 1qt anti-terror bag with your other non-terrorist liquids.

Yes, there are ways to deal with it. but for the occasional traveler it's pretty complex (as so many things in life are getting). Why are they ceasing shaving cream? Why should I have to buy special stuff to travel.

I also spent a bunch of time on the airline web site to make sure I had the right size carry on bag. AA said total dimensions of 45", but there are exceptions. Well, my RJ flight was an exception and I had to valet check my carry on at the door. Even though the flight was booked and paid for, that exception didn't show up anywhere during my ticketing process or in e-mails. Several automated check-in scanners didn't work.

Once I got seated it wasn't bad except the flight attendant had the cabin speaker volume up over 80 dbs, and she was a talker. Several toddlers in the seats behind me yelled and screamed the entire flight. Other than that, smooth flight and arrived early. Since I thought I had a carry on bag; it wasn't secured. Had camera, book I wanted on the flight and several other things on there I'll repack next time into a bag with my computer.

Next time I'll also bring ear plugs.

Best,

Dave

 

[ScottM]

Yes, there are ways to deal with it. but for the occasional traveler it's pretty complex (as so many things in life are getting). Why are they ceasing shaving cream? Why should I have to buy special stuff to travel.

Shaving cream is not "ceased", whatever you mean by that. You jsut have to have it conform the 3-1-1 rule which they have had in place for several years.

I also spent a bunch of time on the airline web site to make sure I had the right size carry on bag. AA said total dimensions of 45", but there are exceptions. Well, my RJ flight was an exception and I had to valet check my carry on at the door.

RJ have always been an exception and valet check is great. You bring the case to the airplane and you get it back right at the airplane once you land. Never is there a chance for lost luggage. It is a reasonable solution to a problem.

Once I got seated it wasn't bad except the flight attendant had the cabin speaker volume up over 80 dbs, and she was a talker.

I get that on even bigh planes everyonce and a while.

Several toddlers in the seats behind me yelled and screamed the entire flight.

That is the fault of parent who think it is ok to bring unctrolable children into the cramped quarters of airlines. Actually it is not limited to airpline. I really ahte the parents that bring babies to late night movies because they cannot get a or afford a baby sitter. They think the kid will sleep through the movie, never happens.

 

[wabower]

Some of us can remember when the Keystone Kops was a comedy. Now they're an agency.

 

[ScottM]

Some of us can remember when the Keystone Kops was a comedy. Now they're an agency.

I can find nothing funny about the TSA. I think your comparison is unfair to the genius that was the Keystone Cops.

TSA reminds more of the Department of Information Retrieval form the movie Brazil.

 

[t0r0nad0]

Shaving cream is not "ceased", whatever you mean by that. You jsut have to have it conform the 3-1-1 rule which they have had in place for several years.

I believe he meant 'seized'.

RJ have always been an exception and valet check is great. You bring the case to the airplane and you get it back right at the airplane once you land. Never is there a chance for lost luggage. It is a reasonable solution to a problem.

I also kind of like this - it beats them forcing you to actually check the bag if you have the unfortunate displeasure of traveling via RJ. I've gotten used to it and now pack everything I need/want in-flight in a backpack and just have clothes/destination items in the gate-checked bag.

I get that on even bigh planes everyonce and a while.

Yup... ERJ's typically have very high speaker volume, as do Airbi. With Boeings, it depends on the type, and on Mad Dogs it depends on where the captain placed his headset microphone in relation to his mouth.

That is the fault of parent who think it is ok to bring unctrolable children into the cramped quarters of airlines. Actually it is not limited to airpline. I really ahte the parents that bring babies to late night movies because they cannot get a or afford a baby sitter. They think the kid will sleep through the movie, never happens.

+1. A lot of theaters around here have gone to doing daytime showings of movies where infants/toddlers are welcome. Take the kids to those showings!

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Thanks PJ; yes seized. Sorry, I'm not on my office computer. That was posted in the dark on an unfamiliar machine and my fingers were goin faster than my brain.

The entire point is this is tripe. We're pulling people's shaving kit apart. Making them take off tennis shoes and flip flops. My Dad wouldn't fly his last few years because he was too proud to use a wheel chair and couldn't stand for the time it took to get through this tripe. It's degrading. Find a technology that let's me bring a bottle of water and food in my carry on. It's nuts to have to go through security; then, stand in line and pay crazy prices for water and a sandwich. I'm not going to get on a plane without those and some other essentials. If the flight gets delayed or re-routed, I'm not counting on the airlines to timely provide those essentials. Some folks have medical issues. My Daughter has a terrible time traveling when nursing.

A few terrorists have committed acts which have taken easy travel away from all and, if you have any 'issues' it can take commercial travel away.

For frequent travelers that are bright and want to put up with it, fine. For many, it's very intimidating and degrading.

Best,

Dave

 

[ScottM]

Thanks PJ; yes seized. Sorry, I'm not on my office computer. That was posted in the dark on an unfamiliar machine and my fingers were goin faster than my brain.

I had thought you mean they ceased allowing shaving cream on board. Glad it got cleared up. I have been known to use some creative spelling myself.

The entire point is this is tripe. We're pulling people's shaving kit apart. Making them take off tennis shoes and flip flops. My Dad wouldn't fly his last few years because he was too proud to use a wheel chair and couldn't stand for the time it took to get through this tripe. It's degrading. Find a technology that let's me bring a bottle of water and food in my carry on. It's nuts to have to go through security; then, stand in line and pay crazy prices for water and a sandwich. I'm not going to get on a plane without those and some other essentials. If the flight gets delayed or re-routed, I'm not counting on the airlines to timely provide those essentials. Some folks have medical issues. My Daughter has a terrible time traveling when nursing.

A few terrorists have committed acts which have taken easy travel away from all and, if you have any 'issues' it can take commercial travel away.

For frequent travelers that are bright and want to put up with it, fine. For many, it's very intimidating and degrading.

Best,

Dave

But other than having to bring your shaving cream in a container under 3oz, the valet luggage, screaming babies, loud PA, etc are all not TSA's fault. As much as I agree with a lot of what you wrote above I cannot blame them for that stuff. The airlines have to share in a good amount of the blame in making air travel into the 21st cetnry version of cattle transport. I would much rather see airlines charge more and have real services and let the people who need cheap travel use rail, busses, donkey carts, etc. We need a tiered approach to travel. Not everything has to cater to the cheapest least frill customer.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Tuesday, we are planning a lot of activities; then, getting to the airport early enough for me to eat there before boarding. So, if I eat with my family, they can't come in the secured area. If I have left overs, I have to toss them; go through security, then, purchase food or a snack and water. Nutso!!

What ever happened to trying to do things in a manner that was the most efficient and least inconvenient for the customer? Now, the customer is dictated to and if they don't like it; tough.

The trouble is, this is happening in so many areas, I find my time taken up doing things to make it convenient for one vendor after another. Internet service--hold for help with will eventually come. Newspaper billing error; I have to take an hour to straighten it out. Cable TV needs a renewal code--put aside some time. Etc., Etc. It's to the point where I'm just quitting things and simplifying my life because time after time, I have to adjust my needs to what the vendor demands and it's just not worth it to have the service. It's not just TSA, but they really contribute if flying.

The worst was pre-paying my mortgage for a year on my home and office. Sending letters of explanation and so noting on checks sent in. Each vendor misapplied the funds. It took quite a bit of time to correct THEIR errors. If I'm late, I get a late fee; if they screw up, they still expect to be paid in full.

We had two tires recently fail on the Barron. Both tubes failed at the sidewall. New tires and tubes. We notified the vendor and after some haggling they agreed to replace the defective parts but will not pay labor. One time this shut down a runway. Another, the mechanic had to jack the plane up to tow it to where it could be worked on. We have pretty large bills other than parts.

There is just issue after issue where the customer is supposed to do what the vendor wants even absorb costs associated with the vendor's failure to properly perform.

Best,

Dave

 

[t0r0nad0]

Dave, I'm glad I could clarify what you were saying for Scott.

[rant]
I completely agree with you. The worst part of the TSA's part of the travel nonsense is that it's all for nothing! I really don't believe that we're any safer traveling now with taking our shoes off and limiting the liquids that we take through the scanner than we were pre-9/11. The fact that a passenger and an US Air employee can smuggle a gun on-board a plane supports my feelings. It's all smoke and mirrors designed to give the traveling masses the illusion that they are safe.

As far as the airline-related crap that you have to go through to travel, that is ultimately the fault of the traveling masses. Yes, there are a few like Scott (I'm one of them) that could and probably would pay a little more for their ticket so that they can get something that still resembles service. Yet, the traveling masses are looking for the cheapest fare out there, so we get what we pay for. Airline ticket prices are the same or less now than they were 10 years ago, meanwhile the dollar is not worth nearly as much. It's impossible to run a business profitably and provide some semblance of service still when your revenue stream is that inhibited.

So what is the solution? To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones from Men in Black, "A person is smart, people as a whole are stupid and panicky." Therefore, we can't just stop all this crap that the TSA is doing - people would panic and freak out and not fly for fear of being blown up by the [sarcasm]terrorists we're suddenly welcoming with open arms.[/sarcasm] Thus, it would take a gradual phasing-out of these policies, like allowing people to wear shoes and carry liquids on-board. I have no problem with the metal detectors, they've been around for a much longer time anyway. They've already done away with the ineffective "puffer" machines (thus removing my one valid excuse for telling the TSA to "B*** me"), so that's a good thing. More importantly, however, the media needs to buy into the idea that there really isn't that big of a threat, and to stop scaring the s*** out of the American people, causing the outcry that created this behemoth in the first place.

As for the airline problem? This has a simple solution in theory, but it would be very difficult in practice. Simple solution, airlines collectively gradually raise prices to a point where they can provide service and make a profit. Not gonna work because there is always someone out there who will undercut the rest to get the business. So, I don't know what the answer is here.
[/rant]

Oh well, I'll shut up now, I've gone on long enough.

 

[mikea]

Dave: Resistance is futile.

The TSA wants you to use an electric shaver that can be monitored electronically.

 

[Trapper John]

The trouble is, this is happening in so many areas, I find my time taken up doing things to make it convenient for one vendor after another. Internet service--hold for help with will eventually come. Newspaper billing error; I have to take an hour to straighten it out. Cable TV needs a renewal code--put aside some time. Etc., Etc. It's to the point where I'm just quitting things and simplifying my life because time after time, I have to adjust my needs to what the vendor demands and it's just not worth it to have the service.

Just think, with all the time you save, you'll be able to yell at kids to stay off your lawn!


Trapper John

 

[Dave Siciliano]

This was sent to me by one of the locals here at Addison.

Best,

Dave

=================================

Father's Day In Handcuffs Not So Much Fun

Photographer Detained Shooting Pictures Of B-24

A photographer for The Dallas Observer was detained at Dallas's Addison airport, a reliever airport north of the city and Love Field, when TSA officials challenged his right to be on the tarmac taking pictures of a B-24 Liberator (file photo below) which was giving rides for Father's Day.

The photographer, identified only as "Danny" in the blog in The Observer online, had the permission of the owners and pilots of the Liberator to take the shots. He was waiting for the airplane to take off when he was approached by Addison police officers, one with an unholstered gun, who handcuffed the photographer and held him until TSA could clear him. He was told he was violating federal law, and that a report would be sent to TSA. The incident even closed the airport for a short time.
The photographer was told he could not be on the "tarmac", which he did not realize included the areas adjacent to the runway.
Eventually, the problem was sorted out. One of the Liberator crew told him later that he'd been ID'd as being OK for the photo shoot, and that the tower personnel tried to keep the incident from happening, but "once the wheels were set in motion, it could not be stopped" the photographer said. "The pilots were pretty much cool and laughed at me and were even willing to escort me to take more shots. However, the officer had asked me to leave, so I did. The police were professional, and I consider myself lucky."


​

 

[ScottM]

This was sent to me by one of the locals here at Addison.

Best,

Dave

=================================

Father's Day In Handcuffs Not So Much Fun

Photographer Detained Shooting Pictures Of B-24

A photographer for The Dallas Observer was detained at Dallas's Addison airport, a reliever airport north of the city and Love Field, when TSA officials challenged his right to be on the tarmac taking pictures of a B-24 Liberator (file photo below) which was giving rides for Father's Day.

The photographer, identified only as "Danny" in the blog in The Observer online, had the permission of the owners and pilots of the Liberator to take the shots. He was waiting for the airplane to take off when he was approached by Addison police officers, one with an unholstered gun, who handcuffed the photographer and held him until TSA could clear him. He was told he was violating federal law, and that a report would be sent to TSA. The incident even closed the airport for a short time.
The photographer was told he could not be on the "tarmac", which he did not realize included the areas adjacent to the runway.
Eventually, the problem was sorted out. One of the Liberator crew told him later that he'd been ID'd as being OK for the photo shoot, and that the tower personnel tried to keep the incident from happening, but "once the wheels were set in motion, it could not be stopped" the photographer said. "The pilots were pretty much cool and laughed at me and were even willing to escort me to take more shots. However, the officer had asked me to leave, so I did. The police were professional, and I consider myself lucky."


​

It is the article that was in Aeronews today.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=cfaa2d2c-75ae-4c69-9cff-f97ba958dcf2&

Disgusting. We live in a police state.

Reminds me of when I am in the People's Republic of China and get stopped taking pictures of bridges or other things.

 

[Everskyward]

Not that this makes it any better but it seems like it was the fault of overzealous Addison police officers rather than the TSA. They just notified the TSA.

He was waiting for the airplane to take off when he was approached by Addison police officers, one with an unholstered gun, who handcuffed the photographer and held him until TSA could clear him. He was told he was violating federal law, and that a report would be sent to TSA.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

This was sent to me by one of the locals here at Addison.

Best,

Dave

=================================

Father's Day In Handcuffs Not So Much Fun

Photographer Detained Shooting Pictures Of B-24

A photographer for The Dallas Observer was detained at Dallas's Addison airport, a reliever airport north of the city and Love Field, when TSA officials challenged his right to be on the tarmac taking pictures of a B-24 Liberator (file photo below) which was giving rides for Father's Day.

The photographer, identified only as "Danny" in the blog in The Observer online, had the permission of the owners and pilots of the Liberator to take the shots. He was waiting for the airplane to take off when he was approached by Addison police officers, one with an unholstered gun, who handcuffed the photographer and held him until TSA could clear him. He was told he was violating federal law, and that a report would be sent to TSA. The incident even closed the airport for a short time.
The photographer was told he could not be on the "tarmac", which he did not realize included the areas adjacent to the runway.
Eventually, the problem was sorted out. One of the Liberator crew told him later that he'd been ID'd as being OK for the photo shoot, and that the tower personnel tried to keep the incident from happening, but "once the wheels were set in motion, it could not be stopped" the photographer said. "The pilots were pretty much cool and laughed at me and were even willing to escort me to take more shots. However, the officer had asked me to leave, so I did. The police were professional, and I consider myself lucky."


​

I got twenty bucks that sez there ain't one square inch of actual tarmac at that airport...

 

[flyersfan31]

Danny himself repeatedly admits that he was in the wrong, if you read the responses to the blog entry.

 

[Bob Noel]

And exactly WHAT is wrong with taking a picture of a B-24?

 

[ScottM]

And exactly WHAT is wrong with taking a picture of a B-24?

He could sell the secrets to the Germans and then we would lose the war!!!

 

[Palmpilot]

Would it have been OK to be wherever he was if he asked a crew member to escort him while he took his pictures?

 

[flyersfan31]

And exactly WHAT is wrong with taking a picture of a B-24?

Read the blog and the follow ups. It WASN'T the picture taking that got him in hot water.

 

[wsuffa]

I was glad to see a court decision against TSA on a case where they went far beyond an administrative search in a dragnet for potential crime evidence. Will have to get the reference.

 

[Ghery]

I got twenty bucks that sez there ain't one square inch of actual tarmac at that airport...

I was thinking that last Saturday while moving planes during the air show. But, I looked down and it wasn't concrete where I was standing. Whatever difference there is between asphault and tarmac, that's how far it was from tarmac. But, I sure get tired of people thinking that's a place on the airport.

 

[wsuffa]

I was glad to see a court decision against TSA on a case where they went far beyond an administrative search in a dragnet for potential crime evidence. Will have to get the reference.

United States vs Fofana: http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/Fofana.pdf

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I was thinking that last Saturday while moving planes during the air show. But, I looked down and it wasn't concrete where I was standing. Whatever difference there is between asphault and tarmac, that's how far it was from tarmac. But, I sure get tired of people thinking that's a place on the airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac

Hooley's 1901 patent for Tarmac involved mechanically mixing tar and aggregate prior to lay-down, and then compacting the mixture with a steam roller. The tar was modified with the addition of small amounts of Portland cement, resin and pitch.[4]

As petroleum production increased, the by-product asphalt became available in huge quantities and largely supplanted tar due to its reduced temperature sensitivity. The Macadam construction process also became quickly obsolete due to its high manual labour requirement; however, the somewhat similar tar and chip method, also known as bituminous surface treatment (BST), remains popular.

While the specific Tarmac pavement is not common in some countries today, many people use the word to refer to generic paved areas at airports, especially the airport ramp or "apron", near the terminals despite the fact that many of these areas are in fact made of concrete. This term seems to have been popularised when it became part of the news lexicon following live coverage of the Entebbe hijacking in 1976, where "Tarmac" was frequently used by the on-scene BBC reporter in describing the hijack scene.[5]

 

[Dave Siciliano]

United States vs Fofana: http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/Fofana.pdf

Thanks for posting that Bill. Pretty narrow set of circumstances and it only excluded using some things in a criminal indictment, but, it's a start. There's got to be some reasonable end to this tripe where they go through each paper in one's wallet, etc.

Best,

Dave

 

[steingar]

United States vs Fofana: http://www.rebelmodel.com/tsa/Fofana.pdf

The things that happen in my little one horse town!

 

[AuntPeggy]

On the June 10th TSA blog about camping, hunting, fishing gear you can/cannot take:

http://www.tsa.gov/blog



I have to laugh that it's okay for me to bring a lighter, but not a bottle of water. That's just insane.

Was this answered?

Q: How do people who do not have a government-issued photo ID deal with these rules? Getting a government-issued photo ID typically requires a birth certificate. My great grandmother’s birth certificate was lost in a court house fire decades ago, and she never had a driver’s license or passport. ~ Adrian

A: Federal regulations require that passengers present a government-issued photo ID during the check-in and screening process. If a passenger doesn’t have a government-issued ID, it is recommend they take the necessary steps to obtain one. It just makes sense to take a couple of hours to get a Government ID to avoid delay at security checkpoints while TSA confirms their identity and ensures they do not pose a threat to security.

 

[murphey]

" cheap travel use rail,"

trust me, rail travel is not cheap. but depending on where you're going, it is very competitive. For airline trips under 2 hours, the train can be faster when you factor in 2 hour advance TSA time and looking for your luggage at the end. And there's no additional fee for the first 2 bags, either. And relatively real food with real silverware. And comfy seats.

In a hurry? Ok, airline travel is about the only viable method until the transporter is working (probably not in any of our lifetimes...) But if you can plan ahead, train travel can be very feasible.

 

[flyersfan31]

" cheap travel use rail,"

trust me, rail travel is not cheap. but depending on where you're going, it is very competitive. For airline trips under 2 hours, the train can be faster when you factor in 2 hour advance TSA time and looking for your luggage at the end. And there's no additional fee for the first 2 bags, either. And relatively real food with real silverware. And comfy seats.

In a hurry? Ok, airline travel is about the only viable method until the transporter is working (probably not in any of our lifetimes...) But if you can plan ahead, train travel can be very feasible.

Maybe in the Northeast Corridor. My experience with long distance train travel on the rest of the Amtrak system has been, well, not so good.

 

[Palmpilot]

Ok, airline travel is about the only viable method until the transporter is working (probably not in any of our lifetimes...)

I would never set foot in one of those things even if they did "perfect" it. How would you know if what appeared on the other end was really you, or just a copy of you that had all your memories and thought it was you?

I don't think I have to worry though, because I think a transporter would require violating Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I've seen sci fi programs that talked about a "Heisenberg Compensator," but that's just arm-waving on the part of fiction writers. (If one can violate a law of physics with a "compensator," then it isn't really a law of physics.)

(Sorry for the off-topic rambling!)

 

[ScottM]

I would never set foot in one of those things even if they did "perfect" it. How would you know if what appeared on the other end was really you, or just a copy of you that had all your memories and thought it was you?

Even more worrisome is that all of your memories are now stored so that the TSA can review them for thoughtcrimes

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I would never set foot in one of those things even if they did "perfect" it. How would you know if what appeared on the other end was really you, or just a copy of you that had all your memories and thought it was you?

I don't think I have to worry though, because I think a transporter would require violating Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. I've seen sci fi programs that talked about a "Heisenberg Compensator," but that's just arm-waving on the part of fiction writers. (If one can violate a law of physics with a "compensator," then it isn't really a law of physics.)

(Sorry for the off-topic rambling!)

Over time, most "laws of physics" have turned out to be merely "convenient approximations of physics" (e.g. Newtons laws) or "big errors of physics"

 

[ScottM]

Over time, most "laws of physics" have turned out to be merely "convenient approximations of physics" (e.g. Newtons laws) or "big errors of physics"

Which one of Newton's laws is a "big error of physics"?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Which one of Newton's laws is a "big error of physics"?

Newton falls into the "convenient approximation" category.

 

[ScottM]

Newton falls into the "convenient approximation" category.

I don't think that is quite fair. A lot of Newtonian theory holds true with some of it only starting have larger errors as you hit the relativistic speeds. It can still be used with reliability for a great amount of things without modification. Given that he developed his theories in an age when there were no computers and mathematics could not even describe what he was doing it is remarkable how good he got it. If you recall he actually had to invent a new branch of math to describe his theories.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I don't think that is quite fair. A lot of Newtonian theory holds true with some of it only starting have larger errors as you hit the relativistic speeds. It can still be used with reliability for a great amount of things without modification. Given that he developed his theories in an age when there were no computers and mathematics could not even describe what he was doing it is remarkable how good he got it. If you recall he actually had to invent a new branch of math to describe his theories.

Fair? Reality.

What was once a "natural law" has now been shown to not universally apply.

Can Newtons "laws" still be used? Sure, I do it every day.

But we now know that they are not inviolate "laws of physics" anymore.

Pesonally, I expect much (if not all) of what we now consider to be "laws" to fall the same way at some time just as all the previous "laws" have.

 

[gprellwitz]

I don't think that is quite fair. A lot of Newtonian theory holds true with some of it only starting have larger errors as you hit the relativistic speeds. It can still be used with reliability for a great amount of things without modification. Given that he developed his theories in an age when there were no computers and mathematics could not even describe what he was doing it is remarkable how good he got it. If you recall he actually had to invent a new branch of math to describe his theories.

Scott, FWIW, I agree with Geoff on this one. It is a convenient approximation that works astoundingly well for almost everything we do on a daily basis. However, the approximation is only valid across a limited set of circumstances. I don't think that anyone is going to suggest that it isn't a remarkable achievement, however!

 

[Palmpilot]

Which one of Newton's laws is a "big error of physics"?

Newton certainly got it extremely close to terrestrial reality. Some of his predecessors, though came up with some guesses that turned out to be pretty wide of the mark. "Earth, air, fire, and water" come to mind, for example.