Strobes or Housing-Which one to risk?

[JohnD]

I am interested in hearing thoughts on this...I suppose this is really more of a "thought exercise"

 

Over the years I have developed different strategies for getting gear safely to a dive location.  It varies, depending on the airlines and specific aircraft involved.  When possible, I like to take as much of the most fragile and/or most expensive stuff with me in the cabin, but sometimes I just have to check most things, other than the camera and lenses, in a suitable checked luggage case.  With several airlines imposing a 7kg carry-on weight limit, and the weight of most bags alone being a couple kg or more, checking stuff has become more common.

 

Anyway, the question I have is this...if forced to check either Retra strobes or a Nauticam housing in a hard-sided rolling case, which would you choose to check?  The housing is more expensive, but I suspect the strobes might be more fragile, maybe?   Gear insurance would ultimately cover at least some of the loss but the loss or destruction of either of these would prevent dive photography on that trip, so neither one is more "important" to have. 

 

 

[Chris Ross]

You need to read the fine print of your insurance - a lot of them state items are not covered if checked, unless the airline forces you to check the items. 

 

I'm not sure where you are flying to but in the US, domestically while there may be limits they seem to be ignored and it's a race to get on first and get locker space.  Seems the same for a great many airlines flying out of the US though budget airlines will enforce it so they can charge you check things. 

 

I would think it's toss up which to check - I would base it on weight and value and what I could get away with packing in the carry on.  Ultimately the solution I think is to base your ticket purchase on carry on policy and book far enough ahead to get a good fare.

[humu9679]

Ugh, the tradeoffs! I try carrying the bare minimum in the cabin to make photos if my checked baggage disappears. On my most recent trip, that meant a camera, housing and one strobe. Luckily, I've never lost anything while traveling. Knock wood.

 

Craig

[Dave_Hicks]

Check it all. Carry on the batteries and camera body & lenses.

[Architeuthis]

I carry strobes with me in cabin lugagge, but Nauticam housing (in the travel bag) is checked-in in hardshell suitcase...

 

Cabin lugagge, in my case, consists of Fotorucksack (approx. 10kg) plus Fotobag (approx. 4 kg). Just camera, lenses, flashes, Li+-batteries, dive computers, compass and travel documents. In addition, I wear a big "outdoor vest" with many pockets, just in case I would have to remove items from the Fotorucksack (never required, so far)...

[Kraken de Mabini]

  The strobes and housing i wrap in my wet suit and clothes, and pack them in my two hard shell suitcases. The camera and lenses I wrap in some clothes in my camera bag. The suitcases I check as luggage and the camera bag i carry with me.

  I have travelled like this for over 20 years with no problem.  

Edited February 14 by Kraken de Mabini

[JohnD]

I frequently do pack everything except camera and lenses in a hard case and check it, but I also use other strategies depending on destination, airline, aircraft and lens selection.   

Just last year I used the checked bag solution due to destination and carry-on weight restrictions.  I paid over $400 in luggage fees (the bag was neither overweight or oversized, just a long trip with several legs).  The case got “lost” and only found by me hours later using my Tile app.  It had somehow found its way into the “lost luggage” area at LAX.  Had I not gone and found it, I would probably never have seen it again, and certainly would not have had the gear on that trip.

On a different trip, the gate attendant announced to everyone before boarding that the anyone in a boarding group higher than 5 would need to check their carry-on bags because the bins were almost full.  I was in group 5.  Without exaggeration, at least 1/3 of the bins were still empty and the flight attendants were going down the aisles closing the empty and partial bins.  We took off with a lot of empty overhead bin space.  Only relevant in that I usually assume any carry-on is at risk to be checked.

Going to Fiji a few years ago, an airline employee walked around the departure area with a bunch of “cabin” tags.  He would lift a bag and estimate if it was over 7kg, and either hand out a cabin tag or tell you it had to be checked.  I failed the test but politely told him it was camera gear and got one of the coveted tags.   On the way back, they weighted it at check in counter and insisted I check the bag and pay for it.

In regard to insurance, my gear is insured via a rider on my homeowner policy.  Trip insurance and the airline’s own lost bag coverage is pretty much useless. 

One of my strategies when the airline is focused on number and size instead of weight is an under-seat bag into which I can fit my camera, two lenses, and either my housing or my strobes.  Thus, my curiosity about which should get packed or carried with me when I use that option

 

[Chris Ross]

It appears flying to Fiji out of LAX, that Fiji air is the only option unless you want to connect through Auckland on AirNZ at greater cost and apparently they are pretty strict on carry ons, probably as they are effectively the only game in town?  Flying somewhere else like the Phillipines will probably open up a lot more possibilities.

Another strategy to use is of course the vest which you can don if you encounter this behaviour and know exactly what to remove to get the weight on spec.  Also mentioning the lithium batteries which are not allowed to be checked.

On the topic of insurance, read the fine print, I have seen policies that exclude things like cameras if they are checked sometimes with an allowance that it is covered if the airline forces you to check the bag.

[JohnD]

On 2/24/2025 at 8:36 PM, Chris Ross said:

It appears flying to Fiji out of LAX, that Fiji air is the only option unless you want to connect through Auckland on AirNZ at greater cost and apparently they are pretty strict on carry ons, probably as they are effectively the only game in town?  Flying somewhere else like the Phillipines will probably open up a lot more possibilities.

Another strategy to use is of course the vest which you can don if you encounter this behaviour and know exactly what to remove to get the weight on spec.  Also mentioning the lithium batteries which are not allowed to be checked.

On the topic of insurance, read the fine print, I have seen policies that exclude things like cameras if they are checked sometimes with an allowance that it is covered if the airline forces you to check the bag.

Yes, have used most of the techniques at one time or another including the vest of many pockets.  Air travel with dive camera gear has become a weird mixture of sport and aggravation for me.  To quote Kenny Rogers... "If you're gonna play the game, boy, you gotta learn to play it right" 

 

I'm still learning.

 

On the insurance, I pay what I feel is a reasonable amount for coverage that specifically includes the camera gear.  I had to provide evidence of value and serial numbers for the more expensive stuff.  I like it because it includes theft and accidental damage such a housing or strobe flood.  It does cover loss by an airline, even if checked, less the few dollars the airline might pay.

 

[Klaus]

We do need that Waterpixels-branded fishing vest in the online store, don’t we?

😉

 

[Chris Ross]

7 hours ago, JohnD said:

Yes, have used most of the techniques at one time or another including the vest of many pockets.  Air travel with dive camera gear has become a weird mixture of sport and aggravation for me.  To quote Kenny Rogers... "If you're gonna play the game, boy, you gotta learn to play it right" 

 

I'm still learning.

 

On the insurance, I pay what I feel is a reasonable amount for coverage that specifically includes the camera gear.  I had to provide evidence of value and serial numbers for the more expensive stuff.  I like it because it includes theft and accidental damage such a housing or strobe flood.  It does cover loss by an airline, even if checked, less the few dollars the airline might pay.

 

Good to see, I think many travel insurance policies exclude checked baggage.