EU to review liquid ban
 

What a breath of fresh air it was to hear someone at last talking sense on the subject this morning on the Radio 4 'Today' program - (around 0730):D:D

I think his name was Ignazi Guadin or something similar - he was refreshingly outspoken on the subject, common sense being the main thrust of the points he made. 10 out of 10 to him - How I wish such sense could be demonstrated by our own Government!

I apologise to him if I have spelt his name wrong.

BS

Not going to happen!!!
 

Something quite similar to this press release was announced in most European papers about 2 months ago........yet another piece of propaganda from Brussels.

I could imagine British sources are refusing to take that issue back, as it was "their baby".

As I was putting my laptop through security the other day, it occured to me that it was protected by a gel filled case. So why not use that to smuggle explosive. Or how about in a plastic container rammed up my a##e, the body is mostly made of liquid, no detector in current service is going to find that. Or why not just have an agent planted in engineering, catering or baggage handling smuggle in hookey liquid by means of a container suspended within a fuel tank, or other tank of liquid. or or or or ..........

How about we strip everyone and make them travel in disposable paper suits.

We had two terrorists drive their jeep in to an airport terminal building and the cops didn't take the opportunity to shoot them, but manage to do a fairly comprehensive job on a visiting Brazilian student.

The whole :mad: world is going nuts, and somewhere on a southern Philippine beach OBL is sipping virgin coladas and grinning like a Cheshire cat. :ugh:

Rant over :uhoh:

If this happens, are the security guards gonna starve? What will they live on if they can't knick my curry and aftershave?





I got through XXX security (a major welsh international airstrip) last week and went to drop my non-explosive keys back into my bag. I discovered my unopened bottle of Buxton Mineral water (2 liters) in there, left over from the previous day. I took it out and dropped it on the desk in front of our valiant security crusader. Nil comment from him. Ho-hum.

Apologies if this has been posted before, but I think it pretty much makes all the salient points.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08...t_terror_labs/

OK, so it's from a news site that relates to my day job rather than aviation, but I still reckon it's germane. I certainly wish it had made the mainstream news.

I know it is slightly off thread, but I was amazed yesterday to be checked through security by a member of security who was himself, only in posession of a visitors pass. When I asked how this could be possible, I was informed this is now normal for new security staff to be able to work, while they are waiting for the normal vetting process to be concluded.
Do I need to draw a picture of the possabilities this can offer, never mind the water folks!
Who is making these descisions?
BALLSOUT

Flammable liquids
 

Whenever people complain about banning liquids on airplanes they always seem to talk about using the liquids to create an explosive, which just seems way too complex.

My fear has always been a flammable liquid.

My only involvement with aircraft is as a passenger, but it seems to me that nothing is quite as dangerous as a serious onboard fire.

What would happen if someone poured a liter of something like ether around and ignited it inside an airliner at high altitude? I assume the oxygen would be consumed rapidly which would make fighting the fire more difficult.

Perhaps modern aircraft are more resistant to fire than I think.

ASFKAP,

Customs officers in the UK have to go through the same cr*p as everyone else - no liquids over 100ml, boots off when asked etc.

Ridiculous when you consider that when they get airside they have the power to board aircraft carrying handcuffs, knives, bolt cutters and the like :ugh:



S78

The issue of people setting duty free on fire (especially high-strength alcohol) is why I remain very surprised that matches are permitted on board. As smoking is not permitted, there is no reason at all why they should be.

The reason they're brought into the cabin is that they are too dangerous to have in the hold in case they light themselves. They're not deemed dangerous enough to ban from the aircraft altogether though.

CAN WE STOP HAVING SUGGESTIONS FOR BYPASSING SECURITY IN THIS THREAD PLEASE!
Whatever is the matter with some of you. Can you remove your 'brilliant ideas'?

Airside Passholders liquid privileges petition
 

Rainboe
I understand your concern, but the problem here is the fools that are in charge of the system. Perhaps if they read these threads, they may take note. But i doubt it!
BALLSOUT.

A bit more of "The Register's" article referred to by DozyWannabe to wet the appetite of those interested enough to try and put some pressure on the Muppets who decide what and how to implement the stupid liquid bans...

Let's whip up some TATP and find out

By Thomas C Greene in Washington

Published Thursday 17th August 2006 09:42 GMT

The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air;
And a loud voice came forth out of the temple of Heaven,
From the throne, saying, "It is done!"
--Revelation 16:17

Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.

The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't. ...more.

The trouble with all security is that it only takes one idiot to find a way of manufacturing something to bring an aircraft down followed by a cry "Why did we not see this coming ?- who is to blame?" It is also worth remembering that whatever we do in the UK or Europe or the States has to be matched at ALL down route airports. Can you seriously see this happening?
As a passenger I would always consider aggravating security such as the liquids matter as worth tolerating just for safety's sake but what about down route - are they as fastidious? I doubt it.
It must be an absolute drag for aircrew (i'm only a week-end pilot) but the very nature of this frustration could be the opportunity for some maniac to get something on board.
It is an old maxim that " The price of peace is eternal vigilance" and so it is with security. An absolute "pain in the butt" for some but just an aggravating nuisance for everybody else.:=

For once I actually agree with the EU on this one. Unless anyone can provide compelling evidence that a home made binary liquid bomb is possible (they won't, coz it isn't) then the ban on liquids should be lifted.
Unlikely to happen in the UK though, as that would reveal that this is just another bit DfT empire building at the best, and another 'we hate aviation' consipiracy at worst.

Thought for the day: if a binary liquid bomb is so damn easy, why bother with the agg of blowing up an airplane - surely a packed commuter train or 10 would have just as big effect and has no security. Oh no, could it be that its not actually possible? The DfT lying to us? never.

(sorry to put Ideas into the Jihadists head rainboe, but I'm sure they've thought of this)

If someone's bright (?) enough to be scouring Pprune for hints about terrorism, they're bright enough to take a cheap flight and keep their eyes open and their brain switched on through security. I think it's safe enough to state the blazingly obvious here.

Roughly four or five times the population of the UK goes through UK airports every year. That's quarter of a billion people. Your chances of ending up airside with things you shouldn't have, if you approach the problem with a few smarts, are extremely high (what were the TSA stats for agents trying to get naughtiness through? Detection rate close to nil. What, you can't think how to do it?).

The business of mixing binary bombs at FL330 is bogus. The chances of it working are tiny, and there are so many better ways...

The only reason for the continued liquid restrictions I can think of is that someone made that call and now refuses to back down because nobody's ever relaxed security like that before

R

Ummmmm, Watch survivor man for a pretty good example of a binary that is SIMPLE... While not a high order explosive, its impressive.

AA and the Allied Pilots Association believe its real, and I have seen a demonstration. I believe its real as well. Enough said. Bury your heads in the sand if you must.

Cheers
Wino

I am a FQTV in premium cabins, 100 segments or more per year.

Being killed in a car accident whilst travelling is far more of a concern to me than being blown up by binary explosives.

20 years in aviation(mil and Civvy) and the crew transport/taxi has always been the most risky part of my job.

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.

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

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...".

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

Which would presumably be somewhat under 100 mls? Ergo whats the point?

What about the airside fire trucks? Are they allowed to pack more than 100ml?
Just curious... :confused:

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.

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!:ugh:)

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!:mad:

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.

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?????? :ugh:

"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.

My dear rmac, if one is going to commit suicide in such a spectacular fashion, perhaps ones terrorists of today may splash out on a better upmarket brandy, after all, surely they are not going to be about to quibble over their last credit card bill or indeed gain from any possible air miles they may earn...........;)

:);) of course, why not send off the infidels with a bottle of the best haram Hennessy XO

Or one better, get a bottle of cask-proof whisky. That's about 60% alcohol, so should burn even better than your brandy.

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.

You could cut nose to spite face and have the security wally disciplined for allowing through DGs. Zippo lighters have a flammable liquid reservoir containing unabsorbed liquid fuel which I believe IATA DG regs prohibit on person or in baggage.

Could be wrong, though, maybe it's changed; DGs refreshers generally good time to catch up on sleep...... :zzz:

New Zippo, perhaps not loaded
 

Sold dry, you load them yourself.

Not indicated if new or loaded, so I am assuming new.

Await more info....

windy

Yeah could be empty but who carries an empty zippo with him "three times"??

Could be a lucky charm, I suppose....

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!