Lap top and tablet ban
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if it's not a bomb - but something else? Say, Bio or chem weapon concealed in a laptop, that is otherwise fully functional? Or software to hack the aircraft?
There's only a few reasons for stashing suspect devices in the hold, and potential explosive power is not one of them. Either the threat requires the attacker to actually use the device (hacking the a/c), or the device contains something that would be lethal in the cabin, less so in the hold.
There's only a few reasons for stashing suspect devices in the hold, and potential explosive power is not one of them. Either the threat requires the attacker to actually use the device (hacking the a/c), or the device contains something that would be lethal in the cabin, less so in the hold.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard a couple of aviation "experts" on Radio 4. God save us from experts!
One antipodean lady claimed that "an explosion against the skin of the aircraft in the passenger cabin would cause "massive decompression"; and I thought there was decompression and not-decompression and now we seem to have grades of decompression. Anyway, she then assured us that this "massive decompression" will result in all on board dying. Well, I never!
I wonder how much we have collectively forgotten about security. In the 1990s it was routine at Frankfurt airport to have your lap top tested for chemical residues, vapours etc, followed by an instruction to switch it on to demonstrate to the police officer that it really is a computer.
Similarly, when travelling by ferry or train from UK to France, it was a common occurrence to be pulled over by a police officer (on the UK side). The usual routine was for the officer to put on a pair of nice white cotton gloves and run his hand all over various surfaces of the car, inside and out. The gloves would then go into the office and into a machine for analysis. One doesn't see this sort of thing any more.
Finally, I wonder how the airlines will react when a laptop goes missing? The standard response is that they are not responsible for valuable items stored in hold baggage.
One antipodean lady claimed that "an explosion against the skin of the aircraft in the passenger cabin would cause "massive decompression"; and I thought there was decompression and not-decompression and now we seem to have grades of decompression. Anyway, she then assured us that this "massive decompression" will result in all on board dying. Well, I never!
I wonder how much we have collectively forgotten about security. In the 1990s it was routine at Frankfurt airport to have your lap top tested for chemical residues, vapours etc, followed by an instruction to switch it on to demonstrate to the police officer that it really is a computer.
Similarly, when travelling by ferry or train from UK to France, it was a common occurrence to be pulled over by a police officer (on the UK side). The usual routine was for the officer to put on a pair of nice white cotton gloves and run his hand all over various surfaces of the car, inside and out. The gloves would then go into the office and into a machine for analysis. One doesn't see this sort of thing any more.
Finally, I wonder how the airlines will react when a laptop goes missing? The standard response is that they are not responsible for valuable items stored in hold baggage.
One antipodean lady claimed that "an explosion against the skin of the aircraft in the passenger cabin would cause "massive decompression"; and I thought there was decompression and not-decompression and now we seem to have grades of decompression. Anyway, she then assured us that this "massive decompression" will result in all on board dying. Well, I never!
Surely the bad guys would be much more likely to target airlines from north america and Europe. A complete ban as appears likely in the UK seems to make more sense if there is information that there is a real risk.
Banning laptops I can understand from pictures I have seen in annual recurrent training, but ipads and kindles seems to indicate a new development in terror technology and could be a real problem if it applies to cockpit crews.
Banning laptops I can understand from pictures I have seen in annual recurrent training, but ipads and kindles seems to indicate a new development in terror technology and could be a real problem if it applies to cockpit crews.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard a couple of aviation "experts" on Radio 4. God save us from experts!
One antipodean lady claimed that "an explosion against the skin of the aircraft in the passenger cabin would cause "massive decompression"; and I thought there was decompression and not-decompression and now we seem to have grades of decompression.
One antipodean lady claimed that "an explosion against the skin of the aircraft in the passenger cabin would cause "massive decompression"; and I thought there was decompression and not-decompression and now we seem to have grades of decompression.
I wonder how much we have collectively forgotten about security. In the 1990s it was routine at Frankfurt airport to have your lap top tested for chemical residues, vapours etc, followed by an instruction to switch it on to demonstrate to the police officer that it really is a computer.
Similarly, when travelling by ferry or train from UK to France, it was a common occurrence to be pulled over by a police officer (on the UK side). The usual routine was for the officer to put on a pair of nice white cotton gloves and run his hand all over various surfaces of the car, inside and out. The gloves would then go into the office and into a machine for analysis. One doesn't see this sort of thing any more.
Finally, I wonder how the airlines will react when a laptop goes missing? The standard response is that they are not responsible for valuable items stored in hold baggage.
Similarly, when travelling by ferry or train from UK to France, it was a common occurrence to be pulled over by a police officer (on the UK side). The usual routine was for the officer to put on a pair of nice white cotton gloves and run his hand all over various surfaces of the car, inside and out. The gloves would then go into the office and into a machine for analysis. One doesn't see this sort of thing any more.
Finally, I wonder how the airlines will react when a laptop goes missing? The standard response is that they are not responsible for valuable items stored in hold baggage.
As crew I get "swabbed" routinely at my home airport instead of having to go through the x ray with my stuff, but the process (machine) is soooo slow. Besides that, allthough they won't gie exact details, the (automatic) screening of the hold bagage is so accurate it can detect traces of "bad" stuff a lot quicker and more reliable then a person behind a screen at a security checkpoint.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does turning it on solve anything? Remove 1kg 8500mah battery and replace with 150g 800mah, filling remaining space with xxx?
Similarly, what communications exploit can you run on a kindle, or on a laptop, that can't be run on a phone? Phones have all the same radios in them than laptops do, and several more besides, of higher power.
Similarly, what communications exploit can you run on a kindle, or on a laptop, that can't be run on a phone? Phones have all the same radios in them than laptops do, and several more besides, of higher power.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: .
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Screening
Everybody here is IMHO wrongly focusing on the devices, but the fact that specific airports are targeted suggests to me that there are serious doubts about the integrity of the security screening personnel at these specific airports.
The fact that specific airports are mentioned versus a worldwide ban, means that the authorities believe that any potential terrorist with a weaponized laptop or tablet will be stopped when trying to board a flight from the EU to the US or vice versa from the US to the Middle East.
The fact that specific airports are mentioned versus a worldwide ban, means that the authorities believe that any potential terrorist with a weaponized laptop or tablet will be stopped when trying to board a flight from the EU to the US or vice versa from the US to the Middle East.
IMHO placing the devices in the hold replaces one risk with a much higher one, as it will mean to put batteries into a non accessible area. I understood so far that batteries like that are not to be carried in hold baggage, so now this new regulation forces the airlines to do exactly that? How does that correspond?
Also, the ruling apparently does not only target laptops and tabletts, but ANY device bigger than a smartphone, which means also cameras e.t.c.
I think the fallout from this will be beyond massive. Nobody I know who travels for business (and quite a few for pleasure too) will give their laptops out of their hands, let alone expensive camera equipment e.t.c. Quite a few people are dreading flying without tabletts, particularly if they were used as pacifiers for children, not being able to read e-books anymore and what else?
People will simply stop travelling, unless they have become such brainless sheep by now that they will endure this as well. I certainly won't.
Also, the ruling apparently does not only target laptops and tabletts, but ANY device bigger than a smartphone, which means also cameras e.t.c.
I think the fallout from this will be beyond massive. Nobody I know who travels for business (and quite a few for pleasure too) will give their laptops out of their hands, let alone expensive camera equipment e.t.c. Quite a few people are dreading flying without tabletts, particularly if they were used as pacifiers for children, not being able to read e-books anymore and what else?
People will simply stop travelling, unless they have become such brainless sheep by now that they will endure this as well. I certainly won't.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody here is IMHO wrongly focusing on the devices, but the fact that specific airports are targeted suggests to me that there are serious doubts about the integrity of the security screening personnel at these specific airports.
The fact that specific airports are mentioned versus a worldwide ban, means that the authorities believe that any potential terrorist with a weaponized laptop or tablet will be stopped when trying to board a flight from the EU to the US or vice versa from the US to the Middle East.
The fact that specific airports are mentioned versus a worldwide ban, means that the authorities believe that any potential terrorist with a weaponized laptop or tablet will be stopped when trying to board a flight from the EU to the US or vice versa from the US to the Middle East.
Bit like the inadequacies uncovered in Egypt at Sharm el Sheik airport, that place was avoided entirely by all UK airlines following the Russian aircraft incident. Interestingly enough that airport did not follow a liquids ban either, and ironically enough the investigation pointed the figure at an explosive in a drinks can!
So the fact this new ban isn't uniform or worldwide is nothing new. At. All.
Similarly, when travelling by ferry or train from UK to France, it was a common occurrence to be pulled over by a police officer (on the UK side). The usual routine was for the officer to put on a pair of nice white cotton gloves and run his hand all over various surfaces of the car, inside and out. The gloves would then go into the office and into a machine for analysis. One doesn't see this sort of thing any more.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People will stop travelling? Please come on....no they won't
As someone has stated the airports mentioned are clearly regarded as security threats, and are located in countries where it is easier to get hold of the required equipment and the right people can be "persuaded" to turn a blind eye
As someone has stated the airports mentioned are clearly regarded as security threats, and are located in countries where it is easier to get hold of the required equipment and the right people can be "persuaded" to turn a blind eye
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People will do what they are told! What's the alternative.
Surely you realise how much you've been robbed and manipulated by 'security' with the liquids ban since 2006?
Wonder why that's still in force, despite technology readily available that can distinguish the contents of liquids being carried in any quantities. And of course the delivery man brings it all airside in the first place, so just shows the whole thing is a joke
This is just another profit making 'security' enhancement
Surely you realise how much you've been robbed and manipulated by 'security' with the liquids ban since 2006?
Wonder why that's still in force, despite technology readily available that can distinguish the contents of liquids being carried in any quantities. And of course the delivery man brings it all airside in the first place, so just shows the whole thing is a joke
This is just another profit making 'security' enhancement
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Beds
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised there is no computer vision solution being applied to this. An xray of an ipad looks like every other ipad, trusting a human to study the image seems silly when a computer could compare with a master image much better. A solution could be applied to every other device, the manufacturer submits the approved master image, the computer compares to this.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have before. During Gulf War 1 passenger numbers dropped.
The impact would vary by route and availability of alternatives.
So I think you'd find that if the UK extended the ban to DBX and EK then a proportion of passengers will reroute - enough to hurt the airline on UK routes.
The impact would vary by route and availability of alternatives.
So I think you'd find that if the UK extended the ban to DBX and EK then a proportion of passengers will reroute - enough to hurt the airline on UK routes.
I think it is quite possible that big companies switch to more video conferences and such as no big company wants their employee's computers out of sight and control at funny places these days. Not so much a decision of the individuel traveller but of the top guys.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am currently awaiting what decision our security team makes on this highly dubious ruling.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Home
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IATA Lithium Battery Guidance document
https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/cargo/...nt-2017-en.pdf
Hopefully the decision to load potential 'unextiguishable' burning devices in the holds override the potential for acts of terrorism.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the ban duration, the liquids ban was meant to be for about six months, back in 2010. Of course, airports have been making fortunes selling overpriced drinks airside since then, so it'll never be dropped.