Carry-on liquid limit to be scrapped?

[UniFoxOs]

Found this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article5891280.ece) article while googling for something else entirely.

Gist of it is (to save you having to read it all) that airline passengers will be able to carry unrestricted amounts of liquid in hand luggage after the upgrade of airport X-ray machines.

The screening technology is undergoing tests at laboratories in Germany, where scientists are checking that it can detect "hydrogen peroxide and other liquids that can be turned into bombs."

I won't feel any safer if it comes about - one day suicide bombers are going to realise that checked baggage exists.

UFO

[MacBoero]

And you think the airports won't pass the checked baggage through the same type of machine?

[radeng]

It's all a bit crazy anyaway. EU law says I can't take a billiard cue as hand baggage (why would I want to?) but I can still take my walking stick - just as well at the moment, the way the sciatica is playing up.

[BladePilot]

UniFoxOs
Where have you been? 100% Hold Baggage Screening was progressively introduced after the Lockerbie bombing way back in the 80's! every checked in bag is screened by some of the most sophisticated equipment available which can detect more than you'd believe possible.
The next attack is likely to be biological, just think a 'carrier' gets onboard an aircraft as a normal passenger and spreads whatever they have to their 100 or more fellow passengers. When that aircraft gets to its destination everyone gets off, looking OK, and disperse far and wide. Within a day or so they all become ill and pass whatever they are carrying onto neighbours, work mates etc...
Remember SARS? not a deliberate attempt to spread a virus but look what it did to air travel when it surfaced.

Now where did I put that surgical mask can't fly without it!

[The Real Slim Shady]

Bladepilot,

Many thanks for astute observation and comment.

Perhaps we coould have this thread renamed Terrorism 101?

Next time you get a good idea, keep it to yourself.

[BladePilot]

Wake up Shady it's already out there:\

[racedo]

I agree Blade.

Lets face it there are so many ways you could think within a couple of minutes that the idea that someone posting on here could be seen as giving people ideas is laughable.

[Final 3 Greens]

just as well at the moment, the way the sciatica is playing up.

Can you pot into the corner pocket with it?

That's the question :)

If so, you could be in big trouble

[UniFoxOs]

UniFoxOs
Where have you been?

Yes, but any amount of liquid is allowed, and presumably the current technology can't tell if it is explosive, otherwise it would already be in use for hand baggage.

[raffele]

The issue with restricting liquids in the cabin is because its the actual act of a terrorist taking on board whatever chemical potion they've made up, and using other items, like another liquid, or a phone battery, to start a reaction to generate an explosion. The terrorists haven't yet worked out how to do this without intervention to place in checked baggage

[Lantern10]

From todays Sydney Morning Herald.

Britain scraps liquid bans for airline passengers

March 13, 2009
Bans limiting the amount of liquid airline passengers can carry as they fly in and out of Britain are expected to be lifted at some airports by the end of the year.
The British government is preparing to relax its ban on liquids, which limits passengers to carrying 100 millilitre bottles, as it introduces improved X-ray machines at airports.
Scientists in Germany have been carrying out secret tests on new screening technology designed to detect bottles of potentially explosive liquids that could be used to make bombs.
A government source told The Times newspaper on Thursday that the new technology would allow the liquid ban to be lifted at a limited number of airports before the end of the year.
"The restrictions will start to be removed in six months to a year's time and passengers will be allowed to carry any size bottle they like inside their hand luggage, just as they were before the summer of 2006," the source told the newspaper.
The bans were introduced after police uncovered an alleged British terrorist plot to blow up transatlantic flights in August 2006.
Eight men accused of planning to detonate suicide bombs on seven flights out of London's Heathrow airport are currently on trial in England.
The ban has meant millions of bottles of duty free alcohol, toiletries and perfume bottles have been confiscated amid confusion among passengers about what they are allowed to carry on board.
AAP

[maxpaxfax]

"The ban has meant millions of bottles of duty free alcohol, toiletries and perfume bottles have been confiscated amid confusion among passengers about what they are allowed to carry on board."

errr I don't think so. You can't get to the Duty Free until you've passed through all the security checks.

[ground_star]

If there's something in it, it's a case of 'here we go again' with the whole "limited number of airports" - if the restriction is lifted, then it is lifted as a standard, no depending on which airports can be arsed to lift it!!

All this is going to do is confuse the pax even more

*sigh*

[remoak]

Not really, it's going to come down to which airports can afford to invest in the latest x-ray machines. Last time it was over £150K per unit, if memory serves... not sure small regional airports are going to want to jump at that.

[White Knight]

eerrrr maxpaxfax - you heard of transit passengers:rolleyes:

[Seat62K]

Plus passengers returning having bought duty free on the outbound leg and trying to return with it.

[wobble2plank]

Transit passengers, through booked with a single carrier or codeshare partner, when transiting from international to international or international to domestic remain 'airside' and any duty free can be carried through as long as it is still supported by a receipt.

If you clear immigration, collect luggage and then re-check for the next flight or a domestic then you are no longer a transit passenger therefore the full security check applies.

[ETOPS]

There are no plans to introduce this at our crew search area thus our passengers will be carrying their larger LCG allowance but their crew will still be restricted............

[llondel]

rafele:
The issue with restricting liquids in the cabin is because its the actual act of a terrorist taking on board whatever chemical potion they've made up, and using other items, like another liquid, or a phone battery, to start a reaction to generate an explosion. The terrorists haven't yet worked out how to do this without intervention to place in checked baggage

I can think of a few possible ways, so I'm sure they can. Of course, some of them are highly visible to security scanners, but whether they'd notice or not is another matter.

On my last flight, coming back to where the family was sitting and finding a couple of packets of chocolate milk, I asked "how did that get through security?" We'd forgotten they were in my son's bag (he was supposed to have drunk them on the trip to the airport) and security didn't spot them either. I guess this ties up with the tests that show that when objects are deliberately planted in baggage, a significant number get through.

[Ten West]

Aargh!! Bl**dy "Security". I despair of the whole mess! :rolleyes:

I can think of plenty of substances I could easily carry onto an aircraft of which 100ml would do one Hell of a lot of damage, let alone 4 bottles of the stuff in a lovely little John Lewis carry-on toiletries bag. Use the right chemicals and you don't even need any fancy improvised detonators either. And I have nothing more than secondary-school qualifications in chemistry. God only knows what a qualified scientist could come up with given a bit of thought.
Who decides on this stuff, or do they just pull random rules out of a 'peaked' hat?? :ugh:

There are far, far easier and more reliable ways to bring down an aircraft than by smuggling explosives or whatnot on board. And before anyone else gets eggy about our friend on the forum earlier who believes that the next attack will be biological: He's right. And it's a very well know theory already in the public domain. So much so that Tom Clancy used it as a central theme in one of his 'Jack Ryan' novels.

Tell you what else makes me wonder:
I went out of STN a while back, and went through security, spotting the clear plastic "Sharps" box full of tiny penknives, Swiss Cards and such.
I then go into the restaurant in Departures and have some dinner. What comes with it? A metal knife and fork! Order a steak and you get a really useful looking one. :rolleyes:

What's next? Someone tries to attack the crew with a pair of underpants and everyone has to leave their shreddies at security? :}
I don't think "Security" will be satisfied until everyone is boarding naked except for wearing a set of disposable paper overalls. Where will it end?

[bluesafari]

err, yes maxpaxfax, if you bought your duty free at other than the airport you are at and then have a transfer you will lose it, passing through Paris I recently poured two bottles of spirits down a sink rather than give it to the security numpties there, and yes it was in sealed bag but not a CDG one.

[Donkey497]

Another neat little unwritten & definitely unadvertised rule they run at Heathrow is that even if you have duty free in a clear double sealed plastic bag with the time & date stamped receipt clearly visible, if you're not transiting from a European airport it's liable to be confiscated.

Thankfully in this case I was able to go back land side, check in a bag that came with the duty free & wrap my duty free in some clothes that we had to change mid-way to freshen up. Shockingly, it actually survived the trip in the hold up to Edinburgh.

[Ten West]

Shocked that it survived the trip without being broken, or shocked that a new bottle of spirits made it unmolested through Edinburgh? ;)

[bfisk]

To all those of you who have security all figured out, reasoning that as long as there is metal cutlery airside, the whole song and dance routine might just as well be skipped:

This is like all other preventive measures in society. There's no one claiming the security checkpoint will be a definite safety barrier. Dangerous people will get through, so will dangerous items, and this will happen regularly, and from time to time.

Likewise we have driving regulations, like speed limits and rules that govern the right of way. Still, accidents happen, and even with a goal of 0 accidents, we are all glad that there are rules, and that they are enforced, aren't we? It is in our own best interest.

Saying that a fence may not be 100% impenetrable, does not justify removing the fence altogether, imho.

Also remember that airside security does not only have to do with high tech terrorists, it also has to do with psychologically unstable persons, people dealing in affect, and people who mistakenly try to bring dangerous items with them.


And oh, by the way: next time you eat your steak airside to prove a point: notice how the knife's pointy egde is rounded, rather than pointed, unlike what you will find at a lot of other restaurants.


(And yes, I am a pilot and I do commute and I do have to pass security regularly, I'm not saying I'm happy with everything they are doing, but I am glad it is there!)

[RatherBeFlying]

Well I guess it's time for the kitchen chemists at AQ & Co. to find something that will make a nice bang when mixed with 35% alcohol.

The duty frees will be instantly put out of business and the airport authorities will lose a big chunk of their revenue stream:}

[BelArgUSA]

RBF - no problem...
xxx
Just buy a bottle of rum, duty free, after passing security.
That bottle, and a match, will make a perfect bonfire in a cabin.
Oh yes, I forgot, Osama buddies do not indulge in alcohol and liquors...
Lucky.
xxx
:ugh:
Happy contrails

[Dairyground]

wobble2plank claims:

Transit passengers, through booked with a single carrier or codeshare partner, when transiting from international to international or international to domestic remain 'airside' and any duty free can be carried through as long as it is still supported by a receipt.


This is incorrect. At LHR T5, for example, and probably generally, inbound transit passengers have to clear security before they are allowed into the airside shopping area (sometimes referred to as the Departure Lounge). There seems to be an exception to this for arrivals from other UK airports, but transit arrivals from elsewhere, even EU airports, have to pass through security checks.

Whether liquids can be carried through the security check depends on where they were bought. Sources in the EU, including on board flights operated by EU airlines, are an EU anti-tamper bag, are generally OK, but liquids bought in most other places are not permitted.

A Google search throws up many sites where the full set of rules are displayed, for example http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/ACI_Priorities/Security/ICAO_TRACKER_FILE.pdf

If you need to bring non-approved liquids with you, put it in your checked baggage, either at your starting point or by going landside during a transit stop. I have found that wine and spirits travel safely wrapped in dirty clothes in the middle of a hard-shell suitcase.

[fc101]

"The ban has meant millions of bottles of duty free alcohol, toiletries and perfume bottles have been confiscated amid confusion among passengers about what they are allowed to carry on board."

errr I don't think so. You can't get to the Duty Free until you've passed through all the security checks.

Used to happen in Heathrow T1 .. there was a security check between dutyfree and the aircraft where they'd take your bottles away...many got upset because they'd had their toothpaste confiscated by security, finally got the the pax waiting ared, bought somethng and then got it taken away...guess it was a good money maker for BAA....ah I think I understand the real reason now :ugh:

fc101
E145 Driver

[rayand]

Slim Shady Said (About how to bypass liquid detection):
"If you have a good idea keep it to yourself"

Discussing potential threats in public allows people -- the government and the populace -- to avoid being caught flatfooted. They can take precautions against the attacks that involve them. And simply thinking about them heightens and focuses their attention, so that they have a better chance of putting the clues together when they meet them, tipping them off ahead of an attack. As any fool can plainly see, forewarned is forearmed.

UK Government keeps most of the planning and thinking secret, even disaster, flood relief, and evacuation plans. They thus prevent millions of thinking people from examining their work and helpfully pointing out their mistakes. Secrecy in the conduct of the public business is inherently bad for the public.

This is why we have -- or, used to have -- public trials, public hearings, public discussions, and such.

See for example: Schneier on Security: Third Annual Movie-Plot Threat Contest Winner (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/third_annual_mo_1.html)

[Ten West]

This is like all other preventive measures in society. There's no one claiming the security checkpoint will be a definite safety barrier. Dangerous people will get through, so will dangerous items, and this will happen regularly, and from time to time.

So... What's the point then? Why inconvenience everyone? The previous set of rules (pre-liquid bomber) seemed perfectly fine for the many years they were in force.

Also remember that airside security does not only have to do with high tech terrorists, it also has to do with psychologically unstable persons, people dealing in affect, and people who mistakenly try to bring dangerous items with them.No-one's doubting that, but how can security reason that a pilot with a pint of milk is a potential terrorist and should have it confiscated? Or even worse, a psychologically unstable person?? They must know something about milk that I don't! :confused:

And oh, by the way: next time you eat your steak airside to prove a point...Proving a point? Er, not that I was aware of. I just fancied the steak that was on the menu, that was all. I didn't even give the type of knife it would come with a second thought until it turned up.

... notice how the knife's pointy egde is rounded, rather than pointed, unlike what you will find at a lot of other restaurants?I didn't notice it on the one that I was using. But rounded end or not, I'm sure that should I be so inclined I could do a lot more damage with the freely issued steak knife than I could with a pair of confiscated nail scissors.

BelArgUSA has got it right. A large bottle of spirits, or even duty-free after shave and a source of ignition would really do some damage. You'd even have the added benefit of the broken bottle to use as an excellent weapon. Yet you don't see airports rushing to ban the sale of that little lot as it would cost them too much money in lost revenue.

Cynical? Moi? :E

[llondel]

BelArgUSA has got it right. A large bottle of spirits, or even duty-free after shave and a source of ignition would really do some damage. You'd even have the added benefit of the broken bottle to use as an excellent weapon. Yet you don't see airports rushing to ban the sale of that little lot as it would cost them too much money in lost revenue.

Quite apart from the terrorist threat, wasn't it a passenger on the Korean 747 that did a CFIT at Guam who reckoned that alcohol from broken duty-free bottles and oxygen from ruptured pipes made the resulting fire that much worse? Simple safety requirements ought to ban anything with a high alcohol content that is capable of ignition.

[Ten West]

Which adds further fuel (Sorry!) to the argument that the whole "Security" aspect of what you can and can't take along on a flight has very little bearing on safety. :bored:

[Michael SWS]

Indeed. The fact that there is no penalty for attempting to take a liquid through security other than having it confiscated makes a mockery of the entire policy.

Either the liquid is dangerous, in which case the passenger ought to be treated as if they had attempted to take an actual bomb through the airport, or it's safe, in which case there should be no restriction.

To a terrorist there is currently little risk in attempting to get a dangerous liquid onto a plane; if it is discovered it is merely taken off him and he is free to try again. And again and again. Eventually he will be successful.

[S78]

Anyone remember the 1985 attacks in FCO and VIE?

You don't have to get through security to cause mayhem.


S78


Waiting for the knee-jerk security checks on the approach roads and 5 mile exclusion zones in case AQUK get hold of some SA7/RPGs:ugh:

[BladePilot]

Already been done.
November 2003 (I think) DHL Airbus hit by shoulder launched SAM. Crew did a great job getting the aircraft on the ground with half the port wing missing.
March 1994 IRA launched a mortar attack on Heathrow from the car park of the Excelsior Hotel, fired them right over the LHR Police station! this resulted in patrols taking place on a regular basis around most UK airports in order to establish an extended perimeter.
I remember visiting the Excelsior Hotel a few days after the incident and the 'launch vehicle' was still there surrounded by a load of burnt out cars caught in the blast from the homemade mortar tubes.

[Ten West]

You don't even need anything as elaborate as SAMs or mortars really.

These are apparently available for private purchase in some parts of the U.S:

Barrett M82 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82) :eek:

The best security is intelligence ahead of time. The Army proved that in Northern Ireland in the bad old days when they deployed the SAS and 14th Int. (The "Det")
Advance intelligence was also the main reason that the 'Liquid bomber' clown was caught if I remember correctly.
I'd much rather see money and resources spent on paying military intelligence guys to infiltrate these groups and nicking them instead of paying more 'security' guys at airports to prevent people bringing dangerous items like 150ml bottles of shampoo on board. :*

[clear prop!!!]

Fact is, that pre-boarding security is completely hit or miss.

The other week, my other half decided that rather than pay globespan £8 or so for a cardboard lunch on our trip to egypt,... she would pack a gastronomic aerial picnic.

To my horror, I was served up one of the 2 M&S jellys..which had sailed through security without detection!!:ugh:

I had removed my belt, shoes etc,..... but jelly is OK??

Add to that the fact that you can buy a pretty sharp Eifeil Tower model (with removable plastic tip protector!), at CDG... past security, and, that the Continental exec lounge (again airside), at EWR issues metal knives to spread your cheese, and,... bottled water is OK at SSH...just how secure is secure?

[Ten West]

Dangerous stuff is Jelly. :=

Certainly not to be...

... Trifled with. :rolleyes:

Sorry. :O

[BladePilot]

Can you still buy Swiss Army knifes in the specialist shop airside in Geneva Airport?

[Inspecthergadget]

The issue of liquids in hand luggage is and has always been an emotive issue and one that i find hard to imagine as being a good reason for limiting what amounts of liquid can be carried in hand luggage.

I read somewhere that it takes only a small amount of liquid high explosive to do serious damage to any structure whether on the ground or in the air. I question whether the current restrictions are restrictive enough and i also question whether the technology being put into place is enough to spot what the authorities are looking for.

But maybe the whole thing was a huge experiment and part of a conspiracy between the government and the airport authorities. Remember that this rule began in Britain where the likes of the BAA lost revenue due to airside shops not making as much money as they did when duty free sales were in abundance. Not only have the airports benefited from the experiment but so have the airlines with sales of goods otherwise purchased on the high street. It's somehow strange that in times of an economic slump that a solution has been found and with it the possible demise of the liquids in hand baggage rule.

[Final 3 Greens]

Can you still buy Swiss Army knifes in the specialist shop airside in Geneva Airport?

Ain't been to GVA for a while, but bought a nice Victorinox at ZRH last month, no probs.

Number of attacks ex ZRH using swiss knives = 0!

[Ten West]

Hmm. Now you come to mention it, those Toblerones do look dangerously pointy as well.

I think they should be confiscated. And sent to me for "evaluation" ;)

[urdy gurdy]

what ever happens with the liquid situation, i bet you will still be able to buy it airside and on an aircraft. It's all about money.
Its the same with alcohol. its illegal to board an aircraft under the influence of alcohol, but there are so many bars airside. So if the pax dont buy the alcohol from the bars, who does? pilots maybe?

[Ten West]

Dead right! :ok:

Drunken Pax cause more misery than Mus... I mean, Terrorists. Do they ban alcohol at airports? No. Why not? Money.

If I can go through the whole arrival/check in/wait/flight/immigration etc. etc. without a cigarette then I don't see why people can't do it without alcohol. :*

[Michael SWS]

Drunken Pax cause more misery than Mus... I mean, Terrorists. Do they ban alcohol at airports? No. Why not? Money.Yes, they cause more general misery. But drunken passengers are unlilely ever to bring a plane down over a city.

If I can go through the whole arrival/check in/wait/flight/immigration etc. etc. without a cigarette then I don't see why people can't do it without alcohol.You could make the same argument against coffee, or chocolate, or shopping in general. The fact is that most people can enjoy a drink without it adversely affecting anyone else whereas even a single cigarette causes inconvenience to those who do not smoke. And in my experience smokers are entirely unaware of how badly they smell after they've had a smoke.

[Ten West]

Yes, they cause more general misery. But drunken passengers are unlilely ever to bring a plane down over a city.

Maybe. But I would venture to suggest that they are, however, several times more likely to 'bring a plane down over a city' than is a Pax who's not off his face.

You could make the same argument against coffee, or chocolate, or shopping in general. You could, were it not for the fact that people are seldom removed from aircraft because of violent or disruptive behaviour after a prolonged visit to the English Teddy Bear Co. shop in the departure lounge at STN. Or over-indulgence at Starbucks.
What's the main cause of Pax being late at the gate? Where are they usually found? In the bar. :rolleyes:

fact is that most people can enjoy a drink without it adversely affecting anyone else whereas even a single cigarette causes inconvenience to those who do not smoke. And in my experience smokers are entirely unaware of how badly they smell after they've had a smoke.I think you misunderstand me squire. I'm not saying "If they can drink then I still want to smoke". I'm saying "I don't smoke throughout the whole process, and as tobacco is far more of an addiction (except in the case of alcoholics) I don't see why we should let people drink at airports.

I'm actually very surprised it's still permitted at all. What happens when they need to evacuate quickly in a fire? Drunk, sleepy pax and burning aeroplanes don't mix. :=

A I aware of how bad I smell? Probably. Do I care? No. I only ever smoke on my own and outside anyway as I hate the smell of it on my clothes and I've no wish to inflict it on others.
I've smelled far worse 'naturally generated' odours on my fellow passengers over the years anyway. Especially the fat ones! :yuk: