Orion Man
I agree that the ban on toothpaste (and indeed Ribena) is quite ridulous. However, if there is a genuine risk that a toothpaste tube could contain components for a bomb, which a pilot could pass on to someone else, is there any justification in allowing a pilot to carry that item through security?
Yes, pilots do have the capability to cause mayhem. However, it would inevitably be a suicide mission (right?), whereas an item carried through secirity could equip someone else to act on another plane. I suspect (though I don't know) that this is the issue. We know that there is very little we can actually do to prevent determined suicide bombers, but there is plenty that can be done to prevent (or at least make life difficult for) those who wish to perpetrate crimes without losing their own.
The bottle carried by the tanker driver - again, surely this is is risk management? Of course the fuel can be used as an explosive, but there is little that can be done about that - aircraft need fuel. However, the bottle could carry components for a liquid explosive, and that risk can be reduced.
I stress two things:
1. I don't agree at all with the current rules on prohibited items - they are a nonsense compared with the actual threat posed;
2. But, if they are to be applied, I think that there is some logic in risk management terms in applying them to everyone passing through the security cordon.
Dr Dave