EU to review liquid ban
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
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 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
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...".
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...".
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Both Emispheres
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I'm more and more convinced that the real reason for this is to increase sales in what were once "duty free" shops.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lost
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
)
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!
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.
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!
)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!
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??????
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??????
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Over-Zealous" screening
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.
"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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,840 Likes
on
1,213 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: sweden
Age: 56
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quote from: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count2.htm
Not too healthy to carry around but they are two liquids that don't like mixing.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Could be wrong, though, maybe it's changed; DGs refreshers generally good time to catch up on sleep......
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New, and loaded!
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!
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!