So it wasn't a totally realistic test.
And another thought...
Quote:
It also could be mixed prior to takeoff but it was said to be initially unstable then slowly looses it omph..
Just as the report I quoted from the Internet said - the stuff is very unstable until it has several hours to settle down AND solidify which means it was highly likely that the device would have detonated whilst the lunatic was still in the toilet, trying to ignore the pounding on the door and the inevitable attention of the cabin crew.
There have been bombs in toilets on aircraft before where, despite a hole in the fuselage, the aircraft structure has been strong enough to enable the aircraft to be landed safely. <Quote> "They build 'em strong at Boeing" <Unquote>
No no and no
Short of flying the plane and filling it with cynics!, it was realistic enough! He mixed it on site and ten minutes later it went bang. It didn't need to solidify, it was ready to go straight after mixing and stable enough for the expert to handle it without needing bomb proof garb.
The home made detonator has a higher chance of not going off, something we couldn't afford to happen due to number of cameras rolling and time taken to enforce exclusion zones ect. However the home made detonator was shown to work to the satisfaction of the journos.
Without exception the entire crew and journalists were shocked and somewhat dumbfounded at the sickening degree of damage caused by such an apparently simple process delivered into an innocuous looking bottle...
And no it is not new, similar mixes were used commercially many years ago and that should underscore the threat rather than be cause for its dismissal.
Mickjoebill