PDA

View Full Version : EU liquid ban to be lifted?!


SailorOrion
11th Mar 2008, 16:34
According to the German newspaper "Die Welt", the European parliament is expected to cancel the braindead liquid-ban on airlines. According to EU Politicians, the current regulations are "not intelligent" and deliver "no increase of security".

Instead of limiting the amount of liquid, one could install (available) detectors that identify the liquid and its threat level.

Took them long enough ....

SailorOrion

J.O.
11th Mar 2008, 16:50
I wonder what the brain trusts at Homeland Security will have to say about this? Better still, I wonder if a study has been done to determine how many confiscated liquids have proven to be items which posed a risk to safe operations. I suspect that the answer would be "none".

SailorOrion
11th Mar 2008, 17:11
Maybe a terrorist could drown the pilot(s) in his water bottle after he used his undetectable shink gun?

SailorOrion

merlinxx
11th Mar 2008, 17:32
They just found out they can't put a 'Land Fill' tax on tkts!

P.Pilcher
11th Mar 2008, 18:33
Well, the Europeans' attitude to security has always been more commonsence than the British slavish adherance to all regulations in the minutest detail. Thus I don't suppose there will be any relaxation of the stupid regulation here - expecially for aircrew!

P.P.

windytoo
11th Mar 2008, 18:38
The BAA will not appreciate the drop in their airside profits if this is true.Maybe they will raise their landing charges to compensate!!

Kraut
11th Mar 2008, 19:10
The British homeland security will fight against this to the last bullet!
It was their baby, bringing up the danger of "liquid terrorism".
Did anybody hear of a trial against the "liquid bombers" in the UK?

andersand
11th Mar 2008, 20:05
News from major Danish newspaper.

EU-Parlamentet voted 583 for and 21 against, on allowing armed guards on board European Union carriers and decided at the same time to uphold the liquid ban.

Andersand

2Planks
11th Mar 2008, 20:19
Kraut

The investigations are still ongoing, the July 05 bombers have recently been successfully prosecuted and jailed. Given that the cases are of similar complexity it may be a while yet.

Ricky1
12th Mar 2008, 06:19
Did anybody not think airport revenue had a huge saying on the liquid ban? The fact that a bottle of water could be filled up at home or bought at a store for lets say $1.50. The to go through security to find that the price of a bottle of water has jumped to almost 4-5$? This adds up after a year of millions of passengers passing through airports. Just a little tought that crossed my mind. I don't think airports will be to happy with this revenue just taken away from them.

Hey lets face it. I would gladly take a large sip of my water if security asked me too.

hellsbrink
12th Mar 2008, 07:13
Kraut

Wasn't there a nice chappie a few years ago who got on a plane in either Phillipines or Indonesia (aircraft bound for Japan, with a stopover en-route) who went to toilet with toilet bag which contained a bottle of a liquid explosive substance (marked as contact lens cleaner), detonator cable hidden in shoe and wristwatch being the actual timer? He made bomb, stuck it under seat and got off at stopover. The bomb went off over water, but luckily for those on board the seat he put the bomb under wasn't above the centre fuel tank as he had planned so the aircraft was not brought down (One pax killed, hole in fuselage, control problems, iirc) and did land safely.

"Liquid Terrorism" is no fairy story, it has happened.

DW11
12th Mar 2008, 08:13
But he could still do the same today, just in batches of 100ml.

hellsbrink
12th Mar 2008, 08:27
Not saying he couldn't, just that doing it is a bit harder. What I'm getting at is this has been done before, was planned to happen again (allegedly) on multiple flights and was no silly little plot to boost the sales of water or cola when you're airside (dunno where Ricky flew from, but I never saw 500% price inflation when I last flew, prices for water/sodas from a vending machine were slightly higher than "outside" but around the same as you end up paying in a rail station/hospital/etc. Same went for a "regular" store airside, not one of them fancy sushi bar type places)

Which version do you prefer? Being restricted regarding the fluids you can take through (do we REALLY need to carry so much stuff with us when we can generally buy the same at the other end) or have someone next to us who has some sort of twisted idea of a Paradise where he gets 72 Virginians and a 1l bottle filled with something he shouldn't have? I'll take the inconvenience, thank ye very much.

Doodlebug
12th Mar 2008, 10:36
Hellsbrink,

Look at it this way, just as an example: I get asked to to a spot of freelance during my off-time. Rather than risk my baggage being lost (once again!!) and therefore arriving unbe-uniformed I throw together a quick overnight bag. I have to avoid packing: shaving cream; shampoo; deodorant; contact-lens fluid. Without going into cost - and yes, it does add up, eventually - the problem for me is that I often cannot source replacements, due to location, time-of-day, or limited time available. Seems minor but it is irritating. :ugh:

Went on a holiday to Africa in november. None of this madness, quick, friendly and efficient checking-in and security, and once on board the crew is delighted to have a fellow-aviator visit them in the cruise. Sigh...

Regards, Bug

fc101
12th Mar 2008, 11:05
Kraut

So it already happened a long time ago -- so why wasn't there a hysterial banning of everything liquid there and then?

Kraut
12th Mar 2008, 13:06
Wasn´t me!

HELLSBRINK brought up the much earlier event (liquids for bombing)

Still believe the liquid ban used at present is not really closing out real terrorists!
My two Euro cents!

DeltaIndiaSierraPapa
12th Mar 2008, 13:20
The BAA will not appreciate the drop in their airside profits if this is true.Maybe they will raise their landing charges to compensate!!

they already did that!

Dont Hang Up
12th Mar 2008, 13:40
Which version do you prefer? Being restricted regarding the fluids you can take through (do we REALLY need to carry so much stuff with us when we can generally buy the same at the other end) or have someone next to us who has some sort of twisted idea of a Paradise where he gets 72 Virginians and a 1l bottle filled with something he shouldn't have? I'll take the inconvenience, thank ye very much. Speaking personally (and even SLF is allowed an opinion) I am now becoming tired of being treated like a prisoner returning from a day in the community whenever I enter an airport.
It isn't just the fluid rules I object to. Security measures in general are now excessive and disproportionate.
I don't deny the terrorist threat is real, but I for one would like the opportunity to show a little more defiance and suffer a little less humiliation.

gone till november
13th Mar 2008, 14:12
Terrorist while being arseholes are not stupid

Im sure that they have moved on and are looking at other ways to piss on our lives and what are the BAA etc doing.........continuing looking for liquids. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

If our security forces are to gain any credit in my book they will be thinking ahead of these pond scum and stoping it before it happens.

Annoying passengers the very life blood of any airport/airline with punitive and in some cases childish behaviour is not the way ahead.:mad:

Crusher1
13th Mar 2008, 18:10
I agree with dont hang up and I've all but given up flying into Europe for short trips, it's almost impossible to take a overnight bag with much useful in it at all, and for women it's even worse (so my wife tells me!), we take the train if we can now, it's just less hassle.

Having said that my vote for the most security conscious goes not to a particular airport but to DHL at East Midlands, most thorough search I've ever had without being taken into a private room!

paarmo
14th Mar 2008, 00:49
The present levels of security at airports does very little to catch terrorists. In fact as far as I am aware not one terrorist has been captured at a British airport in "flagrente" since it all started. There is a strong view that the levels of security deter terrorists from attempting to do anything but at what cost to every other member of the flying public. In addition security is always playing catch up with attempts and "intelligence" gleaned from elsewhere e.g. metal after 9/11,shoes after Richard Reed and liquids after the soon to be tried liquid bombers ( that should be an interesting trial).
Instead of the catch up scenario it would appear to everyone in the upper echelons of airport security that the way forward is through intelligence led security but unfortunately the problems of race relations are immense and no one is willing to put their heads above the parapet to be shot at. There are some 30 indicators before you reach the airport on your booking which can be quickly analysed by computer and if your score is higher than the norm your booking would be flagged and the boarding card and baggage barcodes tagged accordingly without any alert to the passenger or booking agent There is also the chance for the booking agent to flag the passenger without his or her knowledge. There are also intelligent CCTV systems to flag unusual behaviour and finally there is the man on the ground in the terminal to assess passenger body language after certain training of course. The results of these tests which have been carried out revealed that almost 90% of the people flagged for close security check were of arab or asian sub continent appearance which with some 90% of captured and suspected terrorists being of the same racial groupings is not at all bad for a small scale test.
Not really good for race relations when you pass through security and most of the people being strip searched are of asian or arab appearance.
I don't know if any arabs or asians in the forums would like to comment on this.