water on plane = bad, knives on plane = good

Banjo String

From the 25th of April, knives will once again be allowed to be carried by passengers on planes in the U.S.

No mention though of water/liquid in an already opened container though.

Among items to be re-allowed back on an aircraft include:

billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks and lacrosse sticks?

Honestly? Who thinks these things up?

The US Transportation Security Administration has said that travellers will soon be allowed to bring small pocket knives on board airplanes.

They have been banned since the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The decision angered flight attendants, who said the decision would endanger passengers and crew.

The TSA said that effective 25 April, it would allow knives with blades that are 6cm or less in length and less than 1.25cm wide.

Other items that will be allowed on board again as part of a passenger's carry-on luggage include billiard cues, ski poles, hockey sticks and lacrosse sticks.

Items such as razors, box cutters or knives with a fixed blade are still not allowed on board.

TSA spokesman David Castelveter said the decision was made to bring US regulations more in line with International Civil Aviation Organisation standards.

He said they would also help provide a better experience for travellers.

"This is part of an overall Risk-Based Security approach, which allows Transportation Security officers to better focus their efforts on finding higher-threat items such as explosives," he said.

Now, I'm not a flight attendant, granted, but if I was, I'd certainly feel a lot safer staring at at a suspicious looking individual holding a bottle of ballygowan water, than someone with a 6 cm knife/hockey stick, or a poll cue in their hands.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0306/374367-us-knives-airplanes/

hardCopy

You can still bring 10 x 100ml bottles of water. These can still be combined to make a litre of explosive water.

What I can never understand is, if they think there is a risk of my drink exploding, why is it rendered safe by dropping it in a wheelie bin in the departures hall? Why don't they have controlled explosions for all the bottles of Head and Shoulders like they do for abandoned luggage? Because it's all for show.

FatherLen

well to be fair, just because it's a clear liquid in a water bottle doesn't mean it's water but to be able to bring a knife on board is ridiculous.

ColeTrain

How else would you open your packet of complimentary peanuts?

FatherLen

ColeTrain wrote: »

How else would you open your packet of complimentary peanuts?

did i not hear they're gone too?

syklops

hardCopy wrote: »

You can still bring 10 x 100ml bottles of water. These can still be combined to make a litre of explosive water.

What I can never understand is, if they think there is a risk of my drink exploding, why is it rendered safe by dropping it in a wheelie bin in the departures hall? Why don't they have controlled explosions for all the bottles of Head and Shoulders like they do for abandoned luggage? Because it's all for show.

Did you ever see Die Hard with a Vengeance? The explosive they are trying to prevent getting on board is a binary liquid. On its own its harmless, dropping it into a wheelie bin can't hurt it. Its when you combine 500mls of that with 500mls of its reactive agent that a wing or tail might fall off.

seamus

I've always been tempted to blow this liquid regulation out of the water (pun intended) by showing how you could make a bomb in mid-air with some kind of powdered chemical, a tupperware and a regulation litre of water.

Of course then I'd be banned from most international flights...

ColeTrain

FatherLen wrote: »

did i not hear they're gone too?

WHAT??

Banjo String

seamus wrote: »

I've always been tempted to blow this liquid regulation out of the water (pun intended) by showing how you could make a bomb in mid-air with some kind of powdered chemical, a tupperware and a regulation litre of water.

Of course then I'd be banned from most international flights...

Tupperware party in my gaff tomorrow night btw

Pm sent.

FatherLen

ColeTrain wrote: »

WHAT??

something about allergens in the air constantly being cycled around the cabin BUT it may have been a dream.

fishy fishy

how on earth would carrying knives on board prove to be a better experiences for travelers -

and then this :rolleyes::rolleyes:

ColeTrain

FatherLen wrote: »

something about allergens in the air constantly being cycled around the cabin BUT it may have been a dream.

Come to think of it, the last few flights I've been on, I didn't get my nuts. You might be right.

Banjo String

fishy fishy wrote: »

how on earth would carrying knives on board prove to be a better experiences for travelers -

and then this :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Mick Dundee is reported to be ecstatic about the news.

humbert

fishy fishy wrote: »

how on earth would carrying knives on board prove to be a better experiences for travelers -

and then this :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I find a bit of whittling helps to silence the voices.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

I've always been tempted to blow this liquid regulation out of the water (pun intended) by showing how you could make a bomb in mid-air with some kind of powdered chemical, a tupperware and a regulation litre of water.

Of course then I'd be banned from most international flights...

Your surname isn't MacGyver by any chance is it?

BizzyC

Liquid = possible explosive capable of bringing down plane
Knife = sharp object capable of killing, but not capable of taking down plane

I agree though, it's ridiculous when you take into account that they're not actually stopping you from bringing in explosive materials, as long as they're individually 100ml or less....


Also, what happens is someone decides to make a molotov cocktail out of duty free vodka, a sock and a lighter?

osarusan

I remember going through Narita airport in Tokyo, with both a disposable razor in my carry-on and a glass bottle of sake in my check-in luggage. Security made me throw away the disposable razor (ok, I guess it is possible to hurt somebody with it), then advised me to move the sake to my carry on to ensure it wouldn't break.

Which would a cabin attendant/pilot rather see in the hand of a crazy man/terrorist - a 2.5cm strip of flimsy but sharp metal or the 3-4mm thick jagged edge of a broken bottle?

hardCopy

syklops wrote: »

Did you ever see Die Hard with a Vengeance? The explosive they are trying to prevent getting on board is a binary liquid. On its own its harmless, dropping it into a wheelie bin can't hurt it. Its when you combine 500mls of that with 500mls of its reactive agent that a wing or tail might fall off.

I know that's their logic, but it's complete bollix.

So as long as they dump the red liquid in one bin and the clear liquid in another bin, we're grand.

How is it any less dangerous to allow 5 guys bring 4 x 100mls each onto the plane and make up a big batch in the bathroom sink?

All of these measures are tokenism so that people 'feel' safer on a plane. There are plenty of other things on a plane sharp enough to replace a box-cutter without allowing knives.

Jet Black

I thought the EU has set the date of April 2013 for the liquid ban to be lifted?

/edit
From here. Bottom of the page.

Are there plans to revise the law in this area?

Yes. The EU has announced a clear deadline of April 2013 for the lifting of restrictions on liquids in cabin baggage. By this date, all EU airports must have new screening equipment so that screened liquids can be allowed in carry-on luggage.

In the meantime, from 29th April 2011, at the latest, duty free liquids purchased at third country airports or on board third country airlines and carried in tamper evident bags will be allowed as cabin baggage and will be screened.

syklops

hardCopy wrote: »

I know that's their logic, but it's complete bollix.

So as long as they dump the red liquid in one bin and the clear liquid in another bin, we're grand.

How is it any less dangerous to allow 5 guys bring 4 x 100mls each onto the plane and make up a big batch in the bathroom sink?

All of these measures are tokenism so that people 'feel' safer on a plane. There are plenty of other things on a plane sharp enough to replace a box-cutter without allowing knives.

Bruce Schneir calls it "Security Theatre".

humbert

Throwing liquids in the bin is safe because there has yet to be a terrorist plot to blow up an airport bin. If all liquids go into the bin the terrorists wont take that approach.

longhalloween

You could always bring knives on planes provided it was less than 6cm. I was told this as part of a security day in Dublin Airport.

Only America banned all knives, and are now returning to international standards.

stevenmu

ColeTrain wrote: »

How else would you open your packet of complimentary peanuts?

That's why you're still allowed bring small containers of liquid, so you can have enough explosive water to blast open the peanuts without damaging the plane.

delta36

So knife is ok, but razor blades aren't? Don't quite get that.

ColeTrain

stevenmu wrote: »

That's why you're still allowed bring small containers of liquid, so you can have enough explosive water to blast open the peanuts without damaging the plane.

Makes perfect sense.

Where To

I take my big offensive weapon onto a plane all the time.

Ihatecuddles-old

stevenmu wrote: »

That's why you're still allowed bring small containers of liquid, so you can have enough explosive water to blast open the peanuts without damaging the plane.

I think they give you pretzels now...they are nice.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

humbert wrote: »

Throwing liquids in the bin is safe because there has yet to be a terrorist plot to blow up an airport bin. If all liquids go into the bin the terrorists wont take that approach.

I could be wrong, but I think there was an outbreak of Islamis terrorism in Paris in the 90s where they detonated bombs in bins. Not sure if it was at an airport though (although at CDG, no one would notice - that airport is chaotic enough at the best of times).

D1stant

fishy fishy wrote: »

how on earth would carrying knives on board prove to be a better experiences for travelers -

Exactly. It's far more important that we solve the housing and rights issues of our ethnic minorities before we tackle the utensil debate

Pilotdude5

My carry-on bag tested positive for explosive materials last year in Manchester. They asked me if I had packed it myself which I replied in the affirmative.

They just let me get on anyway.

Lapin

hardCopy wrote: »

What I can never understand is, if they think there is a risk of my drink exploding, why is it rendered safe by dropping it in a wheelie bin in the departures hall? Why don't they have controlled explosions for all the bottles of Head and Shoulders like they do for abandoned luggage? Because it's all for show.

I think its an organised measure by the airports to get people to buy their Head & Shoulders, bottled water etc in the airport shops once you pass security.

brandon_flowers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/07/plane-bomb-plot-drink-bottle

There is a documentary also. This is the reason the 100ml ban is in place.

rubadub

hardCopy wrote: »

You can still bring 10 x 100ml bottles of water. These can still be combined to make a litre of explosive water.

A few months into this ludicrous system I had suncream in a large bottle that I was about to throw out. So I got a load of the bags, free at the time, and filled 5 or 6 with my suncream. It was actually the first time the inspector person had seen it done, she looked very suspiciously at them at first, and then commented on it being a good idea when I told her.

BizzyC wrote: »

Liquid = possible explosive capable of bringing down plane
Knife = sharp object capable of killing, but not capable of taking down plane

I agree though, it's ridiculous when you take into account that they're not actually stopping you from bringing in explosive materials, as long as they're individually 100ml or less..

You can bring on semi solid explosives no bother still, just watch out for the extra charges if you go over the weight limit.

humbert wrote: »

Throwing liquids in the bin is safe because there has yet to be a terrorist plot to blow up an airport bin.

This is the stupid situation, they wait till it happens rather than try and think of them before hand. They take the shoes off now, I wondered if some terrorist (male or female) hid it in a bra would they all have to be removed from now, going through the gate. Or would they go "oh no, thats a bit personal, shoes are the limit, we'll just have to risk the bra bombers"

I never understood what is so special about planes, if I wanted to blow up a bomb and kill lots of people there are far easier places.

seamus

Lapin wrote: »

I think its an organised measure by the airports

It's really a piece of Security Theatre, as mentioned above.

It creates minimal or zero benefit in actually combatting terrorism but the service users feel safer. Air transport in particular loves to use it because people naturally feel vulnerable flying in a plane, so rigid security measures result in a big payoff when it comes to encouraging people to fly.

But in the US, where being terrified of everything is the cultural lynchpin, it's used everywhere, from scanners at the entrances to schools and museums to the old "duck and cover" advice for a nuclear blast.

Not to say that we're immune to it. Monitored alarms are another piece of security theatre. You pay good money to make yourself feel safer when in reality you're not.

Lapin

seamus wrote: »

It's really a piece of Security Theatre, as mentioned above.

It creates minimal or zero benefit in actually combatting terrorism but the service users feel safer. Air transport in particular loves to use it because people naturally feel vulnerable flying in a plane, so rigid security measures result in a big payoff when it comes to encouraging people to fly.

But in the US, where being terrified of everything is the cultural lynchpin, it's used everywhere, from scanners at the entrances to schools and museums to the old "duck and cover" advice for a nuclear blast.

Not to say that we're immune to it. Monitored alarms are another piece of security theatre. You pay good money to make yourself feel safer when in reality you're not.

Thats my point. Its got little to do with actually improving security and more to do with increasing revenue for airports and airlines under the guise of making people feel secure.

I've got nothing against any business making a profit but I find the use of 'security' to do so as cynical.

rubadub

Lapin wrote: »

increasing revenue for airports and airlines under the guise of making people feel secure.

I wonder if any airport and/or airline has thought of exposing this nonsense. The delays caused by this crap certainly put me off flying. If an airline made their airport declared they had a sensible security policy it could be a real selling point. Get in and on the plane in no time, just like other modes of preticketed transport, like trains or coaches. They would have a higher turnover of passengers too so could afford to offer cheaper services.

I remember in the US we got a coach between 2 states, since though the plane was supposedly faster with all the unavoidable delays it would have been around the same time.

Lando Griffin

You could still buy a bottle of whiskey or other highly flammable liquids in the Duty Free and bring it on the plane.
How is this rendered safe?
By inserting it into a zippy bag.
I suppose if Islamic terrorists were to be seen bying spirits it might raise suspicion.
Anyway it might have a negitave effect on Duty free sales and jobs.

humbert

rubadub wrote: »

This is the stupid situation, they wait till it happens rather than try and think of them before hand. They take the shoes off now, I wondered if some terrorist (male or female) hid it in a bra would they all have to be removed from now, going through the gate. Or would they go "oh no, thats a bit personal, shoes are the limit, we'll just have to risk the bra bombers"

I never understood what is so special about planes, if I wanted to blow up a bomb and kill lots of people there are far easier places.

I'm still waiting in horror for the first terrorist to hide a bomb as a suppository. Then we're all buggered...

MadsL

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I think there was an outbreak of Islamis terrorism in Paris in the 90s where they detonated bombs in bins. Not sure if it was at an airport though (although at CDG, no one would notice - that airport is chaotic enough at the best of times).

That would be the IRA they got that idea from, London in the 80s.

Here's a nice write upabout the absolute hokum about mixing two liquids in the sky.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

brummytom

I was on holiday with some friends last July, and coming home, I was amazed I was allowed through security with two lighters (a zippo-style, and a normal electric one), but a friend wasn't allowed to take through a still-sealed bottle of whiskey he'd bought as a present for his dad.

Why are lighters ok and fcuking liquid isn't?

Manic Moran

hardCopy wrote: »

I know that's their logic, but it's complete bollix.

So as long as they dump the red liquid in one bin and the clear liquid in another bin, we're grand.

How is it any less dangerous to allow 5 guys bring 4 x 100mls each onto the plane and make up a big batch in the bathroom sink?

All of these measures are tokenism so that people 'feel' safer on a plane. There are plenty of other things on a plane sharp enough to replace a box-cutter without allowing knives.

The significant thing there is the 'five guys.' The trick is identifying the people, not what they're carrying. Everyone with a lick of sense knows that the security line will only stop the utterly incompetent individual, and that identifying a lone actor is also pretty darn hard. The checkpoint is a tool, a funnel, a distraction. Next time you go through a security checkpoint in the US, don't look at the guys in the uniforms running your gear through the X-ray machine at the checkpoint. Keep an eye out for the folks who are keeping an eye on the passengers, both in the line and before you get to the line. Some are easy to spot. Others, you have to know who you're looking for.

Small knives aren't a problem. I strongly doubt any US airplane is likely to be successfully hijacked by a group of people with box cutters any time in the future.

allibastor

seamus wrote: »

I've always been tempted to blow this liquid regulation out of the water (pun intended) by showing how you could make a bomb in mid-air with some kind of powdered chemical, a tupperware and a regulation litre of water.

Of course then I'd be banned from most international flights...

you dont need a litre of water to make anything liek that, you can make some very nasty stuff and have it brought along in the plane quiet easily.

Thermite for example can be failry easily gotten through. many types of nalpalm etc.

MadsL

Manic Moran wrote: »

Small knives aren't a problem. I strongly doubt any US airplane is likely to be successfully hijacked by a group of people with box cutters any time in the future.

Because of locked cabins?

MadsL

allibastor wrote: »

you dont need a litre of water to make anything liek that, you can make some very nasty stuff and have it brought along in the plane quiet easily.

Thermite for example can be failry easily gotten through. many types of nalpalm etc.

Thermite? You think a sufficient quantity of iron oxide will go undetected through X-ray scanners??

Napalm? Where are you going to get the petrol from?

mickgotsick

Where To wrote: »

I take my big offensive weapon onto a plane all the time.

Your wife?

Manic Moran

MadsL wrote: »

Because of locked cabins?

No, because the passengers will have little interest in being part of a warhead of a guided missile.

Frogeye

the whole liquids thing is ridiculous. But didn't the liquid bomb originate in the emerald isle?

http://www.rte.ie/tv/scannal/aerlingushijack.html

And that richard reed thing, the shoe bomber.... trying to set off plastic explosives in his shoe with a match..... others might correct me here but i always thought plastic explosive needed some electrical source of detonation....with that in mind, it seems odd that a terrorist who can get his hands on plastic explosive, hide it in his shoe and get it past security would be so stupid as to try to set it off with a match?


And while i'm ranting... anyone else notice how in cork airport , besides taking out your lap top, you are required to open it and show it to the security person? I've been in 30+ countries and god knows how many airports and only in cork have I seen this....

Stinicker

You can still take as much liquids as you want on a plane you just have to buy them after clearing Security.

Dwork

Yes indeed, confiscate my shampoo, search my shoes, belts off(wtf is that all about??) then let me pop through and into duty free, clutching my zippo. Duty free is fine on airplanes...as are lighters....because we all know Vodka won't burn under any circumstances, nor will cognac, err..hold on..you don't reckon these dumb rules are just that, dumb rules? I'm waiting for someone to douse a cabin in Smirnoff, flick on a zippo, and fcuk up the duty-free business model altogether. I've also seen what chocolate did to my neighbours wife and trust me, that stuff made her explode. It took a while, but jasus she blew up altogether.

james142

ColeTrain wrote: »

Come to think of it, the last few flights I've been on, I didn't get my nuts. You might be right.

I got my nuts on my last Aer Lingus flight 2 weeks ago

HTML5!

Only a matter of time before some lunatic tries it on a plane.