PDA

View Full Version : EU to review liquid ban


doo
5th Sep 2007, 07:48
http://euobserver.com/9/24696/?rk=1

bullshot
5th Sep 2007, 07:58
What a breath of fresh air it was to hear someone at last talking sense on the subject this morning on the Radio 4 'Today' program - (around 0730):D:D

I think his name was Ignazi Guadin or something similar - he was refreshingly outspoken on the subject, common sense being the main thrust of the points he made. 10 out of 10 to him - How I wish such sense could be demonstrated by our own Government!

I apologise to him if I have spelt his name wrong.

BS

Captain Planet
5th Sep 2007, 08:04
Something quite similar to this press release was announced in most European papers about 2 months ago........yet another piece of propaganda from Brussels.

Kraut
6th Sep 2007, 11:35
I could imagine British sources are refusing to take that issue back, as it was "their baby".

rmac
6th Sep 2007, 18:42
As I was putting my laptop through security the other day, it occured to me that it was protected by a gel filled case. So why not use that to smuggle explosive. Or how about in a plastic container rammed up my a##e, the body is mostly made of liquid, no detector in current service is going to find that. Or why not just have an agent planted in engineering, catering or baggage handling smuggle in hookey liquid by means of a container suspended within a fuel tank, or other tank of liquid. or or or or ..........

How about we strip everyone and make them travel in disposable paper suits.

We had two terrorists drive their jeep in to an airport terminal building and the cops didn't take the opportunity to shoot them, but manage to do a fairly comprehensive job on a visiting Brazilian student.

The whole :mad: world is going nuts, and somewhere on a southern Philippine beach OBL is sipping virgin coladas and grinning like a Cheshire cat. :ugh:

Rant over :uhoh:

blue up
6th Sep 2007, 18:57
If this happens, are the security guards gonna starve? What will they live on if they can't knick my curry and aftershave?





I got through XXX security (a major welsh international airstrip) last week and went to drop my non-explosive keys back into my bag. I discovered my unopened bottle of Buxton Mineral water (2 liters) in there, left over from the previous day. I took it out and dropped it on the desk in front of our valiant security crusader. Nil comment from him. Ho-hum.

DozyWannabe
6th Sep 2007, 20:29
Apologies if this has been posted before, but I think it pretty much makes all the salient points.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

OK, so it's from a news site that relates to my day job rather than aviation, but I still reckon it's germane. I certainly wish it had made the mainstream news.

BALLSOUT
6th Sep 2007, 21:45
I know it is slightly off thread, but I was amazed yesterday to be checked through security by a member of security who was himself, only in posession of a visitors pass. When I asked how this could be possible, I was informed this is now normal for new security staff to be able to work, while they are waiting for the normal vetting process to be concluded.
Do I need to draw a picture of the possabilities this can offer, never mind the water folks!
Who is making these descisions?
BALLSOUT

ndonovan
7th Sep 2007, 04:44
Whenever people complain about banning liquids on airplanes they always seem to talk about using the liquids to create an explosive, which just seems way too complex.

My fear has always been a flammable liquid.

My only involvement with aircraft is as a passenger, but it seems to me that nothing is quite as dangerous as a serious onboard fire.

What would happen if someone poured a liter of something like ether around and ignited it inside an airliner at high altitude? I assume the oxygen would be consumed rapidly which would make fighting the fire more difficult.

Perhaps modern aircraft are more resistant to fire than I think.

S78
7th Sep 2007, 06:45
ASFKAP,

Customs officers in the UK have to go through the same cr*p as everyone else - no liquids over 100ml, boots off when asked etc.

Ridiculous when you consider that when they get airside they have the power to board aircraft carrying handcuffs, knives, bolt cutters and the like :ugh:



S78

pacer142
7th Sep 2007, 08:33
The issue of people setting duty free on fire (especially high-strength alcohol) is why I remain very surprised that matches are permitted on board. As smoking is not permitted, there is no reason at all why they should be.

MuttleyJ
7th Sep 2007, 08:45
The reason they're brought into the cabin is that they are too dangerous to have in the hold in case they light themselves. They're not deemed dangerous enough to ban from the aircraft altogether though.

Rainboe
7th Sep 2007, 08:56
CAN WE STOP HAVING SUGGESTIONS FOR BYPASSING SECURITY IN THIS THREAD PLEASE!
Whatever is the matter with some of you. Can you remove your 'brilliant ideas'?

one2go
7th Sep 2007, 09:15
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/airside/

BALLSOUT
7th Sep 2007, 10:10
Rainboe
I understand your concern, but the problem here is the fools that are in charge of the system. Perhaps if they read these threads, they may take note. But i doubt it!
BALLSOUT.

mumbo jumbo
7th Sep 2007, 12:37
A bit more of "The Register's" article referred to by DozyWannabe to wet the appetite of those interested enough to try and put some pressure on the Muppets who decide what and how to implement the stupid liquid bans...

Let's whip up some TATP and find out

By Thomas C Greene in Washington

Published Thursday 17th August 2006 09:42 GMT

The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air;
And a loud voice came forth out of the temple of Heaven,
From the throne, saying, "It is done!"
--Revelation 16:17

Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.

The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't. ...more. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/)

interpreter
7th Sep 2007, 14:07
The trouble with all security is that it only takes one idiot to find a way of manufacturing something to bring an aircraft down followed by a cry "Why did we not see this coming ?- who is to blame?" It is also worth remembering that whatever we do in the UK or Europe or the States has to be matched at ALL down route airports. Can you seriously see this happening?
As a passenger I would always consider aggravating security such as the liquids matter as worth tolerating just for safety's sake but what about down route - are they as fastidious? I doubt it.
It must be an absolute drag for aircrew (i'm only a week-end pilot) but the very nature of this frustration could be the opportunity for some maniac to get something on board.
It is an old maxim that " The price of peace is eternal vigilance" and so it is with security. An absolute "pain in the butt" for some but just an aggravating nuisance for everybody else.:=

AlexL
7th Sep 2007, 16:51
For once I actually agree with the EU on this one. Unless anyone can provide compelling evidence that a home made binary liquid bomb is possible (they won't, coz it isn't) then the ban on liquids should be lifted.
Unlikely to happen in the UK though, as that would reveal that this is just another bit DfT empire building at the best, and another 'we hate aviation' consipiracy at worst.

Thought for the day: if a binary liquid bomb is so damn easy, why bother with the agg of blowing up an airplane - surely a packed commuter train or 10 would have just as big effect and has no security. Oh no, could it be that its not actually possible? The DfT lying to us? never.

(sorry to put Ideas into the Jihadists head rainboe, but I'm sure they've thought of this)

Self Loading Freight
8th Sep 2007, 01:48
If someone's bright (?) enough to be scouring Pprune for hints about terrorism, they're bright enough to take a cheap flight and keep their eyes open and their brain switched on through security. I think it's safe enough to state the blazingly obvious here.

Roughly four or five times the population of the UK goes through UK airports every year. That's quarter of a billion people. Your chances of ending up airside with things you shouldn't have, if you approach the problem with a few smarts, are extremely high (what were the TSA stats for agents trying to get naughtiness through? Detection rate close to nil. What, you can't think how to do it?).

The business of mixing binary bombs at FL330 is bogus. The chances of it working are tiny, and there are so many better ways...

The only reason for the continued liquid restrictions I can think of is that someone made that call and now refuses to back down because nobody's ever relaxed security like that before

R

Wino
8th Sep 2007, 05:35
Ummmmm, Watch survivor man for a pretty good example of a binary that is SIMPLE... While not a high order explosive, its impressive.

AA and the Allied Pilots Association believe its real, and I have seen a demonstration. I believe its real as well. Enough said. Bury your heads in the sand if you must.

Cheers
Wino

Final 3 Greens
8th Sep 2007, 06:16
I am a FQTV in premium cabins, 100 segments or more per year.

Being killed in a car accident whilst travelling is far more of a concern to me than being blown up by binary explosives.

FE Hoppy
8th Sep 2007, 13:29
20 years in aviation(mil and Civvy) and the crew transport/taxi has always been the most risky part of my job.

rmac
8th Sep 2007, 13:30
Wino, why go to all the complexity and trouble of creating a binary device, why not pour the contents of a cheap bottle of brandy in the toilets and then throw in a match. I am sure that the resultant fire might need you finding a diversion pretty quick, though there are not many airfields available mid atlantic. Could the answer be that the resultant drop in airside sales of duty free liquor is far more inconvenient to the airport operators than piss*d off passengers are.

There is no such thing as 100% security, a determined attacker will penetrate eventually if they wish. But why go for the cost and risk of such an operation, if the mere suggestion of outlandish plots screws up the travel of a large amount of the population. If the security people were smart, they would focus on the simple and obvious, not invent hollywood style plots.

Self Loading Freight
8th Sep 2007, 22:16
Wino, it's not that you can't come up with some sort of binary bomb that might work a bit, it's that there are an infinite variety of ways to commit terrorism that would work a lot better at a lot lower risk of discovery.
9/11 was perpetrated with box cutters: we can't take box cutters on board any more. but can you really not think of ways of making equivalent effective weapons on board? I can make a serious knuckleduster from four coins and an in-flight magazine; I can buy a big bottle of Bombay Sapphire at FL350 and turn it into something far nastier than a box cutter.
I know this stuff, and I'm as placid a fat pacifist coward as you'll find. What do those fired with anger and fearlessness know?
9/11 won't happen the same way again, not because of the TSA confiscating peaches from children (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/09/07/cahill_voices_anger_after_customs_detains_his_family_over_fr uit/) but because pax -- even those like me -- will never sit there and let it happen.
Pretending otherwise is not making us any more secure. Increasing the stress and misery of flying is no way to reduce risk. The more the authorities impose what look like stupid restrictions, while absenting themselves entirely from any kind of discussion or public oversight, the more the billions of travellers will resent them and distrust what they say.
We're being lied to - and if we're not, we're not being trusted to know the truth. That's not good. It doesn't make us safer, and it doesn't help aviation.
R

aztruck
9th Sep 2007, 00:11
Mmmmm. Binary bombs. Ask an expert. How about a former British army guerrilla explosives expert(not the defusing of....the construction and implementation if IED's) who also happens to be the ex head of security at a major UK airport.
He gleefully informed us that aprox 4 litres of material would need to be carried through security, including high strength Hydrogen Peroxide..excuse me sir...would you mind having a swig of your water please.....
So...once aboard.....unnoticed(carrying your 4 litres of separate liquids) you sneak into the loo...oh sorry ...I forgot the mixing bowl...and commence the bomb construction, which involves very precise mixing of chemicals at exact proportions in conditions of a narrow range of temperatures and little or no vibration or disturbance for a lengthy period of time.
As my happy expert observed with some satisfaction"there are quite a few folk in Afghanistan with no fingers because they cocked it up...".

Wino
9th Sep 2007, 03:13
SLF.

I happen to agree with you, but limiting the liquids carried on also keeps down the good old fashioned gasoline and a match that brought so many aircraft to Cuba, before the cubans finally started shipping the hijackers back to the USA....

The problem of blowing up the aircraft isn't as bad as them being taken over... but it is real. And it takes shockingly little to do it. (it was only a very few ounces that brought down pan am over lockerbie)

The explosives expert is think from scratch. Not doing most of the mixing before hand and only the finally step inflight, which is exactly how I saw it demonstrated... And an amount the size of a match head made a VERY impressive bang...

Cheers
Wino

eastern wiseguy
9th Sep 2007, 09:57
And an amount the size of a match head made a VERY impressive bang...


Which would presumably be somewhat under 100 mls? Ergo whats the point?

Charles Darwin
9th Sep 2007, 17:59
What about the airside fire trucks? Are they allowed to pack more than 100ml?
Just curious... :confused:

el #
9th Sep 2007, 19:20
Hasn't anybody noticed? Mr. Barroso, EU Council commissioner, has ended the discussion, rejecting the proposal.
I'm more and more convinced that the real reason for this is to increase sales in what were once "duty free" shops.

Bad Robot
9th Sep 2007, 21:56
Duty Free is a fiasco, nobody in there right mind is buying "Duty Frees" anymore, when it is abundantly clear that you can get your "Duty Frees" cheaper in ASDA, Tesco's and Sainsbury's, etc. The Perfume/Cosmetics are still reasonable at allegedly 40% off.

The knock on effect of loss of sales is to Invent some obscure threat, that is the Binary Bomb situation.
UK Airports PLC then confiscate all your legitimate toiletries, water, coca cola, medication and so on, as it is decreed dangerous and has not been screened. ( we all know that neither has the products on sale "air side")

You are then allowed to purchase unscreened products at a Premium once air side, even though they are in larger quantities/containers than the 100mls allowed.( Safety my Bottom!:ugh:)

Solution(excuse the pun) DON'T BUY ANY THING AIRSIDE.

Down side? You bet.....

If you don't, the price of a Bacon Sarnie & a Cuppa will sky rocket to +£20 or more to compensate!:mad:

Nothing to do with "Security" all about making a PROFIT at Joe public's expense and the crews of course.
Isn't there an Offwat ? or some BODY, who should be controlling this extortionate Bollox?

Last week as a positioning crew member, though a London Airport, I had to pay the princely sum of £1 for the purchase of 4/ FOUR, plastic bags to put my toiletries in, where as one would have been sufficient. I also had some goon try to confiscate a 250 ml EMPTY pump action container, that I use to fill with warm water whilst on stop overs ( Yes, it is for Bad Hair Days. ;))

It is a Container for Christ Sake! and an EMPTY one at that. I asked to see his supervisor, which he duly got for me. I suggested that they could X-ray/ swab sample the container, whatever they wished but if it was not returned to me, then I WOULD be pressing charges of Theft. Surprise, surprise they returned said item PDQ.

I am just glad that I don't have to put up with this on a daily basis.

BR.

Captain Planet
9th Sep 2007, 23:17
Last week I was going through security in an international airport in Ireland,I had passed through security and was waiting for my colleague to do so,while I was waiting I witnessed 3 people walk under the arch,beep and walk of on their merry way without even an eyebrow raised by the 5 security staff posted on just that one machine,they were to busy huddled to one side chatting away to themselves to notice this,

What's the point in having these bans if the security staff are too busy talking about who's married and who isn't rather than focusing on their job?????? :ugh:

EastCoaster
10th Sep 2007, 01:49
Captain Planet said:

"Last week I was going through security in an international airport in Ireland,I had passed through security and was waiting for my colleague to do so,while I was waiting I witnessed 3 people walk under the arch,beep and walk of on their merry way without even an eyebrow raised by the 5 security staff posted on just that one machine,they were to busy huddled to one side chatting away to themselves to notice this"

My experience at an International Airport in Ireland was completely the opposite of the above.

While travelling as ordinary pax with the new Mrs EastCoaster (heading off on honeymoon as it happened), I encountered an "over-zealous"?? security agent at the Central Search area of the large international airport. Said security agent's eyes positively bulged and I'm almost certain I spied a smidgeon of drool collect at the corner of her mouth (in a manner not unlike Gollum when addressing the "Precious") when I removed an item from my pocket which had set off the magnetometer. The offending article was an expensive and rather shiny Zippo lighter which had been gifted to me by my new wife on the eve of our nuptials, and which I (rather foolishly) had forgotten to put into the tray for X-ray along with all of the other crap that was in my pockets!

On handing the lighter over for inspection to the agent I explained that it had already passed through airport screening three times, including the one presently being described, but that it had never been an issue for concern. The rather curt reply that I received was "I don't care what you say, I'm telling you that is NOT going through!"
I was very taken aback to say the least, and I'm ashamed to admit it but I capitulated far too easily, not wanting to make a scene in front of all the other pax waiting to go through, nor wanting to embarass Mrs EC.

It was a rather different story by the time we got to our gate, however. I was so angry by the manner in which we'd been treated, and Mrs EC was so upset at the loss (read theft) of her wedding gift to me, that I resolved that I was not going to take it lying down! And so I proceeded back up through the Departure area, through Immigration, down through Baggage Reclaim, out through Arrivals, back up through Departures (landside), and once more into the Breach (Central Search) [Obviously I didn't just take it upon myself to pass through all of these areas without first checking with another (more human) security agent that it was OK to do so].

Now, I knew that it wasn't illegal for me to bring the Zippo through to Departures (not very clever of me to try, admittedly; but it was an innocent oversight), but I wasn't going to make a whole song-and-dance about getting the thing back either. All I was interested in was getting the outer case returned, getting on my flight, and forgetting about the whole incident. I didn't care so much about the flammable bits that are found inside the lighter, they could always be replaced with similar from a cheaper model at a later date. I wasn't even going to write a letter of complaint about the affair (as had been suggested by the previously mentioned more-human agent) as nobody ever seriously follows-up on those anyway, and the complainant only ends up being branded a crank!

On arrival at the screening point the crews had been rotated, and I was met by another (again more-human agent) who listened intently to what I had to say, and then decided that I needed to see a supervisor. After much searching to no avail and numerous phone calls later, he was in the process of advising me again to write a letter of complaint, when a person whom I believe was the Airport Security Duty Manager showed up.

Again I had to recount the experience, to which the SDM listened intently, after which the aforementioned Zippo was returned to me (including the burny bits inside) with a profound apology for the manner in which my wife and I had been treated, along with an explanation that if it had been a cheap pressurised butane lighter the confiscation would have been legitimate and understandable. The SDM then asked me if I wished to make a formal complaint against the agent concerned, which I declined for the reasons detailed above; but when he asked me for permission to take the appropriate internal action against the agent concerned; well, you could have knocked me over with a feather!


I realise all of the above is slightly off-topic, but the point of it is: How many ordinary Joe Public pax have lost valuables (either sentimental or monetary) to occasional "over-zealous"/slightly-less-than-straight agents at airport security, because they're not familiar with or haven't checked the restrictions before travelling? Or because they are just completely bamboozled by the fog of often seemingly-contradictory (but always confusing) regulations?

On any other day I would have been just another one of those ordinary Joe Public's. I'd have said nothing and let it slide, all the while fuming with frustration! I was just unfortunate to come up against one such occasional "over-zealout", and I guess she was just unfortunate to come up against me on that particular day and in those particualr circumstances!!

I'm all for effective security and stringent screening if it is necessary, but I've found that there are some who are possibly willing to abuse their position for their own gain. Old news to all you seasoned travellers I know, but Beware. And don't forget, you can question their actions.

NutLoose
10th Sep 2007, 02:07
Wino, why go to all the complexity and trouble of creating a binary device, why not pour the contents of a cheap bottle of brandy in the toilets and then throw in a match. I am sure that the resultant fire might need you finding a diversion pretty quick, though there are not many airfields available mid atlantic. Could the answer be that the resultant drop in airside sales of duty free liquor is far more inconvenient to the airport operators than piss*d off passengers are.

My dear rmac, if one is going to commit suicide in such a spectacular fashion, perhaps ones terrorists of today may splash out on a better upmarket brandy, after all, surely they are not going to be about to quibble over their last credit card bill or indeed gain from any possible air miles they may earn...........;)

rmac
10th Sep 2007, 09:56
:);) of course, why not send off the infidels with a bottle of the best haram Hennessy XO

ChristiaanJ
10th Sep 2007, 10:21
Or one better, get a bottle of cask-proof whisky. That's about 60% alcohol, so should burn even better than your brandy.

chksix
10th Sep 2007, 11:27
A quote from: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm

Hypergolic propellants are fuels and oxidizers which ignite on contact with each other and need no ignition source. This easy start and restart capability makes them attractive for both manned and unmanned spacecraft maneuvering systems. Another plus is their storability — they do not have the extreme temperature requirements of cryogenics.

The fuel is monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and the oxidizer is nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).

Hydrazine is a clear, nitrogen/hydrogen compound with a "fishy" smell. It is similar to ammonia. Nitrogen tetroxide is a reddish fluid. It has a pungent, sweetish smell. Both fluids are highly toxic, and are handled under the most stringent safety conditions. Hypergolic propellants are used in the core liquid propellant stages of the Titan family of launch vehicles, and on the second stage of the Delta.

The Space Shuttle orbiter uses hypergols in its Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem (OMS) for orbital insertion, major orbital maneuvers and deorbit. The Reaction Control System (RCS) uses hypergols for attitude control.

Not too healthy to carry around but they are two liquids that don't like mixing.

ScottyDoo
12th Sep 2007, 10:05
The offending article was an expensive and rather shiny Zippo lighter .....that ......had already passed through airport screening three times, including the one presently being described, but that ..... had never been an issue for concern

You could cut nose to spite face and have the security wally disciplined for allowing through DGs. Zippo lighters have a flammable liquid reservoir containing unabsorbed liquid fuel which I believe IATA DG regs prohibit on person or in baggage.

Could be wrong, though, maybe it's changed; DGs refreshers generally good time to catch up on sleep...... :zzz:

Itswindyout
12th Sep 2007, 10:22
Sold dry, you load them yourself.

Not indicated if new or loaded, so I am assuming new.

Await more info....

windy

ScottyDoo
12th Sep 2007, 10:29
Yeah could be empty but who carries an empty zippo with him "three times"??

Could be a lucky charm, I suppose....

EastCoaster
12th Sep 2007, 14:42
Scotty,

The lighter was new and had been filled, but according to the literature I've seen, is not a prohibited article because the liquid fuel used is absorbed in cotton wadding, and is unpressurised, so therefore is less likely to constitute a hazard than the ubiquitous gas lighter. It hasn't caused even a second glance at any airport security, apart from this one occasion, although I admit that I didn't have much cause to test the theory during the period when the restrictions were at their most stringent.

It may well be that it should be picked up by security at the screening point - maybe the fact that it's usually in the tray or in a jacket pocket going through the X-ray machine has something to do with it. As I said already, on the occasion described I had forgotten to put it into either, having completely missed it when I was emptying my trouser-pockets. The point that I was making however, was about the magpie-like manner of the agent!

ScottyDoo
12th Sep 2007, 15:05
Is that so? Thanks Eastcoaster!

I always thought that Zippo fuel was not absorbed. In fact, when I do a DGs refresher, the Zippo is often held as the standard example of the unabsorbed liquid-fuel lighter, which is why I've never bought one. (I don't smoke but I like shiny things.)

Anyway it just goes to show how much the DGs folk know. And what they cram our heads full of! Can't wait to mouth off at the next refresher... :p

Cheers... :ok:

SLFStuckInTheBack
12th Sep 2007, 15:43
MRs SLF and I were heading back to Seattle from San Francisco. On handing over the hold lugaage the Alaskan Air rep. asked if we had a list of items including matches in the hold luggage. I replied yes, a small book of matches from the Hayes Street Grill (a reminder of our meal there). We were told that matches were not allowed in the hold luggae and had to be in our carry on!!

Go figure

EastCoaster
13th Sep 2007, 13:02
Just goes to show how much of a disparity exists between the rules and guidelines being issued by the various regulators. No wonder pax find it so confusing! :ugh:

Just a spotter
13th Sep 2007, 21:22
Anyone recall Philippines 434?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434

JAS

EastCoaster
14th Sep 2007, 01:25
So, let me get this straight:

My Zippo lighter contains unabsorbed liquid fuel, unless you're talking to the FAA (who make the rules for the USA), in which case it contains absorbed liquid fuel and is perfectly OK; unless I plan to fly to the USA with DLH in which case it's prohibited, despite the fact they allow one lighter so long as it is filled with fully absorbed liquid fuel (which it is) and it is carried on the person and not in luggage or carry-on bag (which it also is)!?! And despite the fact that the FAA allow it in the cabin?? What gives? :rolleyes: :ugh: :confused:

Maybe I should just quit!

MaxReheat
14th Sep 2007, 14:12
I think that it goes to show what a complete farce this security charade has become. It is now high time that a conference in sanctioned to allow knowledgeable, pragmatic experts (not politicians or anybody with vested interests in the security behemoth!) and pilot and engineering reperesentatives to come up with a practical and logical set of procedures that allow the front-line people in this industry to get on with their jobs unmolested, the travelling public to proceed on their lawful business and implement effective screening and profiling measures to actually identify the potential bad people (and not necessarily the 'terrorist').

JW411
14th Sep 2007, 15:18
SLFStuckInTheBack:

Matches are not allowed in the hold for a very good reason. Can you imagine that 400 bags (for example) could move around and the friction could just be applied to a bag at the bottom of the pile?

I can remember when I was a captain in Transport Command that one of our VC-10s had a hold fire (if my memory serves me right) on the descent into Akrotiri in Cyprus. They were very lucky to get the aircraft and its contents on to the ground without any fatalities.

The cause was the rubbing together of matches in a soldier's luggage.

The Beast
13th Dec 2007, 11:03
Binary Bombs my arse...its all an excuse to invent un-needed jobs...its a bit like HIPS packs for houses...

The government realise we have no real industry in Britain anymore so is content to go along with any hair brained ideas that create made up employment, in this case in the form of added security people!!

Not to mention the £££ Millions the airports are now making from us selling us stupid little plastic bags to put tiny bottles of liquids in!!

WERE BEING CONNED!!!

Jay Arr
13th Dec 2007, 12:01
Man chugs vodka at airport security

Thursday Dec 13 16:00 AEDT


By ninemsn staff

A German man nearly died of alcohol poisoning after sculling a litre of vodka at an airport security check point.

The 64-year old was changing planes in Nuremberg after holidaying in Egypt where he purchased the vodka. Airport security told him he could not take the bottle on board his flight to Dresden.

Nuremberg airport, like many others around the world, doesn't allows passengers to carry large amounts of liquid onto a plane. Given the option of either throwing the vodka away or paying an extra fee to have it put onto the plane, the man drank the entire bottle dry in a matter of minutes.

Police said he was soon unable to stand and a doctor was called to treat him. He was later taken to a nearby hospital and officials said he should be able to complete his journey home in the next few days.



http://optuszoo.news.ninemsn.com.au/img/hw_ninelogo.gif

The SSK
13th Dec 2007, 12:16
Also in today's news:

New rules end confiscation of duty-free liquids bought at Singapore airport from transfer passengers

Today, the European Commission has adopted a regulation allowing air passengers arriving from Singapore and transferring at an EU airport to take duty-free liquids on-board their connecting flights. When changing planes in the EU, these passengers will no longer be obliged to abandon liquids bought at Singapore airport and carried in their cabin baggage. This is the first application of a recent regulation that introduced the possibility of such exemptions for liquids bought in the airports of third countries.

Ye Olde Pilot
13th Dec 2007, 12:22
The world has gone mad. Let's face it,if you are a terrorist and want to create havoc in New York,London etc just detonate something on the subway.Given the reaction to 9/11 and Richard Read the effect would create ten times more hassle which is the objective. OBL must be laughing in his cave:confused:

Dave Gittins
13th Dec 2007, 13:02
The Vodka story has just brought a blinding realisation to me.

If I buy a bottle of spirits in T4 duty free on my way from LHR to COS (Colorado Springs) I go via ORD where I enter the US. When I check-in for my onbound flight I am going to have a problem if I troll up carrying my bottle of Glenfiddich in a BAA placcy bag .... and I don't think putting it into my hold baggage at O'Hare is an option.

Hmmmmm.

:ugh:

walter kennedy
13th Dec 2007, 13:17
Did not the long time bomb disposal head in NI (Lt Col Wylde??) cast doubt on the technical feasibility of the alleged liquid explosive plot?
Personally, it seems to me that it was a distraction from Israel bombing Lebanon - thats where most of our so called intelligence on mid east terror comes from - but they couldn't be bothered to give us an exit strategy so we will have to put up with the b*l*s*it for a while yet - unless we grow balls and stand up to the 'effin nonsense.

PAXboy
13th Dec 2007, 15:22
The possibility of a liguid bianry bomb was COPMPREHENSIVELY rejected by a number of different folks. Several current affairs progs and newspapers printed detailed refutation of the 'threat'. This was done within a couple of weeks of the ban being brought in.

It was apparent that to make such a device in an equipped laboratory on the ground with knowledgable people - was difficult. To do so in the dunny of an a commercial air transport - was impossible.

Naturally, nothing has changed.

Skipness One Echo
13th Dec 2007, 16:33
The interesting thing is that the defence in any upcoming trial should therefore be able to prove that in mitigation. Their clients may have been attempting mass murder, but they have an obligation to show the court that in fact, they didn't have the means.
Let's wait for the trial, and if it emerges that it isn't rally possible, then let's take the fight to the next stage.

ChristiaanJ
13th Dec 2007, 17:33
Oh, for crying out loud...

Anybody with an elementary understanding of chemistry knows that manufacturing a "binary bomb" in an aircraft toilet is simply not on.

Especially since emptying a couple of bottles of duty-free 'cask proof' Scotch (60%+ alcohol) on the floor and setting fire to it would be a lot more effective.

You're right, nothing will change, and ignorance reigns.

llanfairpg
20th Dec 2007, 02:08
Especially since emptying a couple of bottles of duty-free 'cask proof' Scotch (60%+ alcohol) on the floor and setting fire to it would be a lot more effective.

Never do this on a Glasgow or Edinburgh flight unless you like disemebarking on a stretcher.