Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Lap top and tablet ban

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Lap top and tablet ban

Old 22nd Mar 2017, 07:29
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Connecticut, USA
Age: 64
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rcsa
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.
If it was a software exploit - it might be something that US planes could be "hardened" against, but perhaps the US might not want to give that technology/information to the Middle Eastern countries?
jugofpropwash is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 07:33
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,984
Received 305 Likes on 158 Posts
Originally Posted by rcsa
The earliest reports said the ban would last 96 hours.
The airlines have been given 96 hours to implement the ban.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 07:50
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 77
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.
KelvinD is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 08:09
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,984
Received 305 Likes on 158 Posts
Originally Posted by KelvinD
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!
Presumably Sally Leivesley, last heard telling us that MH370 had been the victim of a cyber-hijack.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 08:11
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
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.
lederhosen is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 08:12
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by KelvinD
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.
In my opinion, there are more than one sort of decompression when looking at the immediate effects and results. I'd rather have a slow leak then a ecplosive 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.
In the '90's there were far fewer passengers, let alone passengers with laptops, ipads, ebookreaders, etc. I wonder if with todays numbers it would be feasible to physically check each and every item on each and every passenger and still have a functional airport.
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.
the_stranger is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 08:22
  #107 (permalink)  
BRE
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sabbasolo
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.
The kindle, even the most recent version, is so woefully underpowered that surfing the web to a text only site is painful. I doubt you can use it to hack anything.
BRE is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 08:41
  #108 (permalink)  
 
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.
FrontRunner is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 09:09
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ZRH
Age: 61
Posts: 574
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
AN2 Driver is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 09:46
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cheshire, UK
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FrontRunner
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 liquids ban was NOT a uniform worldwide ban. Outside of the US, Europe and certain other countries like Australia, Hong Kong etc, no one implemented a liquids ban. It is also telling that especially in the Middle East, there was NO liquids ban, but there is now this electronics ban specifically targeting them.
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.
T250 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 10:17
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Northampton, England
Age: 64
Posts: 475
Received 74 Likes on 54 Posts
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.
Carried out by civvies rather than plod but it's been routine last few times I've used Chunnel or ferry.
Airbanda is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 10:28
  #112 (permalink)  
 
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
Livesinafield is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 10:31
  #113 (permalink)  
 
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
T250 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 10:40
  #114 (permalink)  
 
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.
phead is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 10:49
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Under the flightpath
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cabin and flight crew on many airlines affected by this ban use iPad's on board so will these also be banned?
1965 BEA is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 10:52
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Livesinafield
People will stop travelling? Please come on....no they won't
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.
Dryce is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 11:00
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,146
Received 89 Likes on 52 Posts
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.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 11:30
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by AN2 Driver
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.
As inferred elsewhere, it is not always a case of choice, I am not allowed by my company to check a company laptop into hold baggage. If I did and was found out to have done, I'd be subject to disciplinary action.

Am currently awaiting what decision our security team makes on this highly dubious ruling.
eal401 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 11:54
  #119 (permalink)  
 
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.
CanadaKid is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 12:06
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rcsa
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?


The earliest reports said the ban would last 96 hours. That's a very precise time frame.
There are far easier containers to use.

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.
Aluminium shuffler is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.