Lap top and tablet ban
If I were one of the bombing types...I would be laughing gleefully to myself 'cause now all that firepower is gonna be concentrated in the one place that nobody can get at...and all it takes from me is one device to set off the whole shebang...how nice!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still think that the only way a cabin ban works is if the threat is in using the device somehow to affect the controls of the aircraft. (By which I would also include interfering with communications or radar.) I mean, why on earth would you take what you fear could possibly be a bomb and pack it amidst a bunch of highly flammable batteries, in a place where you cannot get at any resultant fire to put it out? Would it not make more sense to have the possibly suspect piece of electronics in the cabin, where fellow passengers would notice if you started doing something odd like prying your computer apart? And where if there was a fire or explosion, flames could be doused, etc?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. Unlike a laptop in the cabin, the bomber has no control over where it explodes.
I presume the idea is that you're more likely to survive a small bomb in the cargo hold than wherever they think the bombers plan to explode them. But, as you say, if it explodes in a big pile of laptops, the damage done to their batteries might well make it a very bad day all around.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the ban first came out they did state what the threat was. They said they had intelligence that said terrorists were trying to build devices that were part of numerous devices. So one part in a iPad, one part in a laptop, one part in a kindle... once airborne into the toilet to disassemble these devices and reassemble into the destructive device.
If, and it is a big if, this is true then the ban makes sense
If, and it is a big if, this is true then the ban makes sense
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another way of stopping these security problems would be to ground all commercial aircraft indefinitely - including freight. 
I am surprised such a simple idea has not occurred to the simple minded security 'experts'. They do appear to be working hand in glove with those they claim are the 'security threat' because as soon as a threat is made the response is to reduce the freedom of all the travelers rather than to actually improve their gathering of intelligence and identifying those that are the major risk and ensuring that they are no threat. This is the El Al approach.
Otherwise I can see TSA (or equivalent) preventing EFBs from being carried aboard, or the airline chairman having his laptop impounded.
The way security is applied must be made more robust and intelligent the current 'ban it from the aircraft' approach is playing into the hands of those who wish to destroy the system.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - MLK Jr
I am surprised such a simple idea has not occurred to the simple minded security 'experts'. They do appear to be working hand in glove with those they claim are the 'security threat' because as soon as a threat is made the response is to reduce the freedom of all the travelers rather than to actually improve their gathering of intelligence and identifying those that are the major risk and ensuring that they are no threat. This is the El Al approach.
Otherwise I can see TSA (or equivalent) preventing EFBs from being carried aboard, or the airline chairman having his laptop impounded.
The way security is applied must be made more robust and intelligent the current 'ban it from the aircraft' approach is playing into the hands of those who wish to destroy the system.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - MLK Jr
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the ban first came out they did state what the threat was. They said they had intelligence that said terrorists were trying to build devices that were part of numerous devices. So one part in a iPad, one part in a laptop, one part in a kindle... once airborne into the toilet to disassemble these devices and reassemble into the destructive device.
If, and it is a big if, this is true then the ban makes sense
If, and it is a big if, this is true then the ban makes sense
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, the terrorists will just take a connecting flight via Canada or the Caribbean, or go the long way around via Asia, or the antipodes.
A blanket ban must be a blanket ban. Anything else is a joke.
A blanket ban must be a blanket ban. Anything else is a joke.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a joke.
Terrorists can fly on domestic flights as well, therefore, if the threat is real no electronics should be allowed on US domestic flights either.
I read that the reason for the specific airports chosen was that terrorist sleeper security were in place to 'allow' pax through with devices that would otherwise be picked up. This justification was obviously untrue if there is a blanket ban. The ban is a tacit admission that the security at airports in insufficient.
Yet it is probable that the chance of a LiIon battery fire in the hold is higher than the chance of a terrorist bomb.
The word inept comes to mind.
Terrorists can fly on domestic flights as well, therefore, if the threat is real no electronics should be allowed on US domestic flights either.
I read that the reason for the specific airports chosen was that terrorist sleeper security were in place to 'allow' pax through with devices that would otherwise be picked up. This justification was obviously untrue if there is a blanket ban. The ban is a tacit admission that the security at airports in insufficient.
Yet it is probable that the chance of a LiIon battery fire in the hold is higher than the chance of a terrorist bomb.
The word inept comes to mind.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO Dubai security is much more thorough than security at JFK or IAD. Of course security personnel can be bribed to do nasty things, but I suspect the risk is just as great in the US as at airports on the banned list.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that the reason for the specific airports chosen was that terrorist sleeper security were in place to 'allow' pax through with devices that would otherwise be picked up. This justification was obviously untrue if there is a blanket ban. The ban is a tacit admission that the security at airports in insufficient.
If there really were specific airports with terrorist sleepers on the staff, the last thing one would want to do is highlight one's knowledge of that by picking on flights from that airport... However, I don't think there's any need to obfuscate that knowledge that by picking on an entire continent's airports.
AS Ian W points out whats the point in not banning their use on US domestics. After all as I reminded the thread in an earlieir post 9-11 was US home grown affair. Only the people were non US , the means (flight training in that case) and the targets were both domestically focussed and I am sure buying a few electronic gadgets and getting hold of a small quantity of explosive is easier than sending a bunch of people through basic flight school. No its blanket ban or nothing if it is to be effective otherwise it just perpetuates the myth that foreigners are the threat to the USA. However 9-11 , The Fed Building in Oklahoma? Boston Marathon and various other incidents makes it very the that 'the real enemy is within' but that doesn't suit the 'wall mentality' does it
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my source still in the industry. Circulated by IATA yesterday 17/05/5
Over the past several weeks, there have been numerous press and industry reports suggesting that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would expand the scope of this directive to cover more last points of departure (LPD) to the US. At this point, DHS has made no formal announcements on any expansion of this directive. However, below outlines recent developments in this regard:
· On 12 May, representatives of the US and EU met via conference call to discuss the potential expansion of the directive. As a result of that meeting, the US and the EU will meet next week in Brussels to decide on the best path forward to address this security threat. We do not expect the US to make any announcement on expansion until that meeting is concluded.
· On 9 May, the ICAO Council met to discuss the issue, a meeting in which IATA was able to participate. The Council agreed to set up a multidisciplinary group (cargo, security, flight operations, and dangerous goods) to address the issue urgently. IATA and Airports Council International have been invited to be part of this group.
· On 10 May, IATA facilitated and participated in a Security Summit in Washington, DC involving airlines, airports, and regulators to discuss the security threat and how to address it. One result of the meeting is that industry partners agreed to compile a summary of lessons learned thus far and propose a range of short-term measures for consideration by regulators and transport ministers. IATA will work urgently with electronics manufacturers to seek tamper-evident solutions. The IATA Smart Security Management Group will also continue to work with screening technology providers to secure medium and long-term large electronic device screening solutions.
· On 11 May, U.S. carrier representatives met with DHS Secretary John Kelly to discuss the issue. The Secretary provided the participants with a briefing on the security threat but did not indicate how or when DHS would expand the scope of the directive.
· Also on 11 May, IATA briefed US Congressional homeland security staff on our concerns regarding the impact an expansion of the directive would have on commercial air operations. To that end, IATA is preparing a full assessment of this impact to share with government regulators.
· IATA continues to reach out to DHS to stress the following:
o We accept the need to mitigate threats with additional measures. However, we want to help ensure that those measures are effective, operationally efficient, and minimize the impact on passengers;
o DHS needs to continue to consult with industry on the best way to achieve our mutual protective security goals;
o DHS needs to provide industry with lead time to comply with any expansion of the directive;
o Coordination among governments on a multilateral basis is critical when addressing such security threats; and
o The confusion caused by lack of advanced coordination and communication and by industry not being part of determining what is implementable reduces the effectiveness of counter measures.
IATA will inform member airlines via all channels when and if DHS announces an expansion of the security directive. We anticipate that this will happen sometime next week. We are hopeful that we will receive adequate warning and lead time on any expansion. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that will be the case.
We encourage you to reach out to your governments to stress these points, particularly in Europe.
· On 12 May, representatives of the US and EU met via conference call to discuss the potential expansion of the directive. As a result of that meeting, the US and the EU will meet next week in Brussels to decide on the best path forward to address this security threat. We do not expect the US to make any announcement on expansion until that meeting is concluded.
· On 9 May, the ICAO Council met to discuss the issue, a meeting in which IATA was able to participate. The Council agreed to set up a multidisciplinary group (cargo, security, flight operations, and dangerous goods) to address the issue urgently. IATA and Airports Council International have been invited to be part of this group.
· On 10 May, IATA facilitated and participated in a Security Summit in Washington, DC involving airlines, airports, and regulators to discuss the security threat and how to address it. One result of the meeting is that industry partners agreed to compile a summary of lessons learned thus far and propose a range of short-term measures for consideration by regulators and transport ministers. IATA will work urgently with electronics manufacturers to seek tamper-evident solutions. The IATA Smart Security Management Group will also continue to work with screening technology providers to secure medium and long-term large electronic device screening solutions.
· On 11 May, U.S. carrier representatives met with DHS Secretary John Kelly to discuss the issue. The Secretary provided the participants with a briefing on the security threat but did not indicate how or when DHS would expand the scope of the directive.
· Also on 11 May, IATA briefed US Congressional homeland security staff on our concerns regarding the impact an expansion of the directive would have on commercial air operations. To that end, IATA is preparing a full assessment of this impact to share with government regulators.
· IATA continues to reach out to DHS to stress the following:
o We accept the need to mitigate threats with additional measures. However, we want to help ensure that those measures are effective, operationally efficient, and minimize the impact on passengers;
o DHS needs to continue to consult with industry on the best way to achieve our mutual protective security goals;
o DHS needs to provide industry with lead time to comply with any expansion of the directive;
o Coordination among governments on a multilateral basis is critical when addressing such security threats; and
o The confusion caused by lack of advanced coordination and communication and by industry not being part of determining what is implementable reduces the effectiveness of counter measures.
IATA will inform member airlines via all channels when and if DHS announces an expansion of the security directive. We anticipate that this will happen sometime next week. We are hopeful that we will receive adequate warning and lead time on any expansion. Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that will be the case.
We encourage you to reach out to your governments to stress these points, particularly in Europe.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS Ian W points out whats the point in not banning their use on US domestics. After all as I reminded the thread in an earlieir post 9-11 was US home grown affair. Only the people were non US , the means (flight training in that case) and the targets were both domestically focussed and I am sure buying a few electronic gadgets and getting hold of a small quantity of explosive is easier than sending a bunch of people through basic flight school. No its blanket ban or nothing if it is to be effective otherwise it just perpetuates the myth that foreigners are the threat to the USA. However 9-11 , The Fed Building in Oklahoma? Boston Marathon and various other incidents makes it very the that 'the real enemy is within' but that doesn't suit the 'wall mentality' does it
But there's nothing magically different about the equipment and procedures the US airports use that makes them more able to spot laptop bombs. They're in the same situation as anyone else.
Factors that might be thought of as different include 1) the level and penetration of domestic surveillance, 2) the likelihood of spotting a plot before the bomb gets taken to an airport, 3) the availability of explosives.
You're right about the need for a ban to be universal or non-existent. Terrorists love to "beat the system", and a patchy ban is full of holes...
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Lossy city
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US airports have "precheck" for essentially anyone who can pass a background check. Laptops and liquids can stay in bags there. *multiple* laptops sandwiched together in a bag in fact (2 is the official limit apparently, but I've seen more in practice). Either the X-rays machines for pre-check are extra strong and they have specially trained operators on them, or ...? (I've never been to Dubai, but the only airports where I've not had to remove laptops recently are in New Zealand for domestic flights, or the US with precheck.)
So now you're relying on the quality of background checks (haha, good joke).
So now you're relying on the quality of background checks (haha, good joke).
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Factors that might be thought of as different include 1) the level and penetration of domestic surveillance, 2) the likelihood of spotting a plot before the bomb gets taken to an airport, 3) the availability of explosives.
0) the number of terrorists.
No terrorists would mean no threat.
Europe is importing many more of them every day, with no end in sight. Trump is at least trying to stop America importing them.
triploss.
I pay a lot of taxes in Europe and I like to be spend on the well-being of myself and those near me (not I have a choice). I feel that Europe does not need to import additionally potential terrorists - particularly this kind stating they are 12 and look enough have father themselves.
Also it seems American is buying new aircraft without any IFE because "most people carry their own IFE in the form of a tablet". I am wondering if they are going to do the same with their widebodies if they have any in order.
I pay a lot of taxes in Europe and I like to be spend on the well-being of myself and those near me (not I have a choice). I feel that Europe does not need to import additionally potential terrorists - particularly this kind stating they are 12 and look enough have father themselves.
Also it seems American is buying new aircraft without any IFE because "most people carry their own IFE in the form of a tablet". I am wondering if they are going to do the same with their widebodies if they have any in order.
