Airport Security Question

MrPudding

So, I have a couple of questions regarding the temporary security restrictions that were brought in after the alledged attempt to blow of planes a few months back and also the current restrictions.

First of all. Cabin baggage size was reduced. Why was this. I assume I am being stupid but what made the smaller carry on size more secure than the normal one? And as a follow up, what then changed to make the normal size OK again?

As for the current restrictions. Why only liquids in 100ml containers?

MrP

BendiBus

MrPudding wrote:

First of all. Cabin baggage size was reduced. Why was this. I assume I am being stupid but what made the smaller carry on size more secure than the normal one? And as a follow up, what then changed to make the normal size OK again?

I believe it was mainly to speed up the security checks.

Victor

MrPudding wrote:

As for the current restrictions. Why only liquids in 100ml containers?

While the suggested plot has been shown to be impractical, others have potential.

Imposter

It's largely security theatre. It attempts to placate the traveling public who are worried about such threats without doing anything serious to hinder those and other threats.

Nobody in the industry is going to complain as they mostly benefit in one way or another. The only loser is the person who wants to fly.

MrPudding

Victor wrote:

While the suggested plot has been shown to be impractical, others have potential.

That doesn't really answer the question. Why 100ml containers?

MrP

Idleater

MrPudding wrote:

That doesn't really answer the question. Why 100ml containers?

MrP

Because they are small enough to appear as if they could do no harm yet large enough to still remain useful.

Like imposter said above - it is theatre.

Most of the public understands that there is some "threat" to "blow up" planes using "liquids". So to placate the majority, we create a ficticious "100ml" container as "safe".

Of course some people realise that 10ml of some liquid could do untold damage, that is impractical, so 100ml still gives holiday makers enough shampoo and toothpaste to continue travelling while the security people/airports/airlines do their bit by doing something "visible" to "increase" security.

Happy now?

L.

daymobrew

I had an empty 750ml water bottle taken from me recently. Maybe I should have put it into my carry-on when going through security.
I'll have to look into a collapsible water bottle, maybe a Camelbak reservoir or plastic bag-like bottle would work.

Red Alert

It is a total time-wasting cherade. The fact nowadays is that anybody who has the time/energy/expertise and inclination to damage a plane or its occupants will do so.

A lot of airport security staff appear to be on a power trip and driven by a tin-pot dictator mentality. Not just in Ireland but in general.

The sooner we sit down and realise that this is all just stupid the better. If we really wanted to sort out the security issue, we'd do it like El Al do, but that's just not feasable or required for short haul.

antoinolachtnai

I trust you have read the relevant EU legislation

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_286/l_28620061017en00060007.pdf

The annex in particular is a model of both clarity and brevity.

Victor

daymobrew wrote:

I had an empty 750ml water bottle taken from me recently.

Over a period of hours, through repeated folding, backwards and forwards could have formed a number of pointy pieces of plastic!

LundiMardi

I'm actually on a flight to NYC on Monday. It's an Aer Lingus flight direct from Dublin.

Is all this new baggage requirements only applicable to the UK or is it here to?

I'd obviously like to carry on some stuff, bag with jacket, mp3, drink etc and all important documents.

What's the story now with this kind of thing?

Thanks.

LundiMardi

actually, skip that.. I just checked the rules, bringing on liquids is just too much hassle, i'll buy water on the plane!! hehe

But about the new cabin luggage size, it has the measurements on the website, but i don't know what this equates to in real life!!! I presume a normal school bag would be grand?

Victor

LundiMardi wrote:

actually, skip that.. I just checked the rules, bringing on liquids is just too much hassle, i'll buy water on the plane!! hehe

Buy it airside in the airport, probably cheaper than the plane.

oscarBravo

Victor wrote:

Over a period of hours, through repeated folding, backwards and forwards could have formed a number of pointy pieces of plastic!

Over a period of seconds, the bottle of Bailey's I bought airside in Knock and carried onto the plane could have formed a number of pointy pieces of glass.

This, for me, highlights perfectly the absolute farce - "theatre" is an excellent term for it - that these security regulations represent. We can't bring nail scissors onto a plane, but we can buy a lethal weapon in the duty-free. I can bring a bottle of booze over to my brother in London (as long as I buy it from the airport), but I can't bring back the '91 Crianza he gave me as a Christmas present.

parsi

And of course there's no way a group of people could pool their 100mls to form a larger quantity ... sheesh...

MrPudding

parsi wrote:

And of course there's no way a group of people could pool their 100mls to form a larger quantity ... sheesh...

Exactly, terrorists foiled by inabilty to divide the amount of liquid explosive needed to destroy plane by 100.

MrP

mdebets

Does anyone knows what the story with knifes is.
I was in Frankfurt over Christmas and new leaflets were saying pocket knifes with a blade of up to 6cm are allowed in the carry on luggage. I even ask the security guys and they said that indeeed I could carry it on.
The German version of the Frankfurt Airport webpage mentions it here but the English version has no mentioning of it.

AlekSmart

That`s a special law to facilitate members of the Swiss Army on their holliers.......:)

Idleater

Mr Pudding wrote:

terrorists foiled by inabilty to divide the amount of liquid explosive needed to destroy plane by 100.

Not quite.

I think it is more that the plebians need to feel reassured that something is being done to curb this "threat".

nereid wrote:

...the security people/airports/airlines do their bit by doing something "visible" to "increase" security.

L.

ZENER

Victor wrote:

Buy it airside in the airport, probably cheaper than the plane.

'fraid that won't work either. The American airlines (Delta etc.) use private security operatives who will confiscate bottles of water/drinks from passangers as they enter the jetway to the plane - hard luck ! That said I'm not sure about Aer Lingus but I think they do it too.

Although I work at the airport I think some of the measures applied are simply ridiculous, anyone with a mind to will get anything they want onto a plane.

I really feel for those people who are practically strip searched at these posts. Although it's difficult to know which is better - lipservices or do nothing.

It's no better for staff though, who are searched on average 5 times a day !! It makes the atmosphere difficult to work in - very oppressive.

ZEN

daymobrew

ZENER wrote:

'fraid that won't work either. The American airlines (Delta etc.) use private security operatives who will confiscate bottles of water/drinks from passengers as they enter the jetway to the plane - hard luck ! That said I'm not sure about Aer Lingus but I think they do it too.

My friend's suggestion was to put the air side purchased water bottle in your coat (or bag). That worked for him in November.
I flew Dublin to/from JFK recently with Aer Lingus. My air side purchased bottle of water was not taken from me, despite it being quite visible on the outside of my bag.

When I flew with US Airways (Dublin-Philadelphia) in 2005, I was asked security questions at check-in and again on the jetway. The latter seemed to be random.

Victor

daymobrew wrote:

My friend's suggestion was to put the air side purchased water bottle in your coat (or bag). That worked for him in November.
I flew Dublin to/from JFK recently with Aer Lingus. My air side purchased bottle of water was not taken from me, despite it being quite visible on the outside of my bag.

What if you bring wet clothing?

daymobrew wrote:

When I flew with US Airways (Dublin-Philadelphia) in 2005, I was asked security questions at check-in and again on the jetway. The latter seemed to be random.

Same for me on American Airlines. She was interested in my musical cow.

therecklessone

MrPudding wrote:

That doesn't really answer the question. Why 100ml containers?

MrP

Why not ask the EU?

QUANTITIES PERMITTED

6. Why quantities are harmless? What exemption is made for small quantities?

The Commission has consulted experts on explosives and their advice is that it is not possible to make explosives that could destroy an aircraft with small quantities. The limit of 100 millilitres (1/10 litre) per container in the regulation is based on their advice.

7. Could not a terrorist carry many small containers?

This is certainly a risk. A terrorist could mix together the contents of a number of small containers and get enough to make an effective bomb. So we have to limit not only the size of individual containers, but also the number that any passenger can take past screening points.

Our technical advice is that a total volume of around 500 millilitres (1/2 litre) would still be safe. However, it would be quite impractical to ask screeners to add together the capacities of dozens of small containers: 30 millilitres here, 55 there and so on. This would delay flights for hours and drive screeners mad. So we adopted another solution.

By experiment the Americans have found that, if you pack a number of containers of around 100 millilitres into a plastic bag of one litre capacity, measured their capacities and added them up, the total quantity of liquids was in the range of 500 millilitres. And screeners can easily check such bags if they are transparent. Hence this measure.

Aviation security: EU acts against liquid explosivesQuestions and answers

MrPudding

therecklessone wrote:

Why not ask the EU?



Aviation security: EU acts against liquid explosivesQuestions and answers

OK. So it is a stupid as I thought then. When I flew back the other day there were people with bags of small containers. I saw one woman who much have had close to two dozen small containers in three plastic bags.

Aren't we lucky that the terrorists are too stupid to work out that they can spread the amount of liquid needed between several of them. Stupid terrorist. Sh1t, I hope none of them are reading this. I have just told them how to bypass the EUs super advanced anti-liquid bomb security measures.

Mrp

parsi

Cork - leave on your shoes
Heathrow -take off your shoes and be screened by a guy that looked so like Osama's brother that he must be stopped regularly....

Alun

parsi wrote:

Cork - leave on your shoes
Heathrow -take off your shoes and be screened by a guy that looked so like Osama's brother that he must be stopped regularly....

That's one of the worst things .. the inconsistency of it all between airports. The worst ones in my experience are some of the small regional airports in the UK where they seem to make up the rules as they go along. You just can't be certain that something that was OK on the outward journey is also going to be OK on the return as well.

MrPudding

Alun wrote:

That's one of the worst things .. the inconsistency of it all between airports. The worst ones in my experience are some of the small regional airports in the UK where they seem to make up the rules as they go along. You just can't be certain that something that was OK on the outward journey is also going to be OK on the return as well.

It seems to depend on the shoes. I never get asked anymore. That said, if you use the new scanner in Luton you always have to take them off.

There is still inconsistencies. No coins in your pocket in one airport but they are fine in another. Belts off in some, ok in others.

MrP

Flukey

We all want security, but some of this stuff is completely ridiculous. The terrorists must be laughing themselves silly seeing baby milk now being treated as a deadly weapon. When it comes down to it, what isn't a deadly weapon? All manners of clothing can be used to strangle someone. Your bare hands could be a deadly weapon. Hit someone with a shoe and you could hurt them.

Then, when you do get on the plane they hand you many potential deadly weapons, far more dangerous than the milk and water confiscated at the boarding gate. A tin can, if ripped apart, can make a lethal cutting edge. You could even do some damage to someone with the plastic cutlery they give you. OK, the liquids could potentially be used to make explosives, but even the 9/11 hijackers just had basic weapons and look what they did.

Where does it all stop? With the way they are going, the logical result is that in order to fly on a plane, you will have to be blindfolded, gagged, tied up, anaethecised and allowed no luggage whatsoever.

Well I suppose Ryanair would be delighted. They could remove all seats on their planes and pack even more of us in on each flight! :rolleyes:

Victor

Flukey wrote:

The terrorists must be laughing themselves silly seeing baby milk now being treated as a deadly weapon.

Didn't the Americans [strike]comb[/strike] bomb a milk powder factory in Iraq?

MrPudding wrote:

There is still inconsistencies. No coins in your pocket in one airport but they are fine in another. Belts off in some, ok in others.

Depends on the type and sensativity of the scanner, some can discount coins and other very small metal objects (unless there are lots of them), others can't.

Flukey

Victor wrote:

Didn't the Americans [strike]comb[/strike] bomb a milk powder factory in Iraq?

They've bombed just about everything in Iraq.

Anyway, the security is a bit crazy now, and some of the airlines are milking it. Baggage charges are now making more, because people are putting their bags in the hold, in order just to bring basic toiletries or things like scissors and other items.

When you are going through the security and you see the boxes with cutlery, scissors, pen-knives etc. you'd wonder if they had really been confiscated off people or are they just there for show, to make people think the security is working.

Most people know of the security restrictions these days, so you'd wonder did someone genuinely try to bring through some of the larger items you see in those boxes. OK, you might overlook a small pen knife, but some of the things in those boxes, do look a bit unlikely to have actually been brought to the checkpoint by somebody.