Carry-on liquid limit to be scrapped?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: U.K./nigeria
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!)
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!)
Liquids Panic Attack Wearing Off
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
The duty frees will be instantly put out of business and the airport authorities will lose a big chunk of their revenue stream
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Happy contrails
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
Happy contrails
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wobble2plank claims:
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...ACKER_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.
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...ACKER_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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
errr I don't think so. You can't get to the Duty Free until you've passed through all the security checks.
fc101
E145 Driver
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London
Age: 57
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Improving Security at our Airports and On-board
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
"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
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bfisk
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not entirely sure.....
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all a waste of time
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Thinking about it, give me a minute.
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
These are apparently available for private purchase in some parts of the U.S:
Barrett M82 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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?
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!!
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?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester & no intention of moving again
Age: 61
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.