Comments on: Why do we still ban liquids and gels on planes?

By: Charlie Leocha

Charlie Leocha — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:10:41 +0000

Here is the BBC video of the effects of a liquid bomb–
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7536167.stm

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:18:05 +0000

WSJ has an article on this topic:http://blogs.wsj.com/middleseat/2009/09/11/tsa-liquid-restrictions-remain-and-new-powder-checks-coming/

By: Joel Wechsler

Joel Wechsler — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:47:41 +0000

Jiohn, you are missing the point about large bottles being sold in the secure area. Regardless of whether or not they have been scanned, they could still be emptied and used, in theory, to mix an explosive by a number of people, each of whom is carrying the approved 3.5 ounce containers. This is what makes the prohibiton of large containers so silly.

By: ton

ton — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:04:23 +0000

i think the idea is that you can take the empty bottle and pour liquid from smaller ones in it. So creating 1 powerful bomb

(if you think it does not work, check the bbc report they had an expert make one)

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:33:52 +0000

@CT: I’ve had empty plastic bottles taken off me at security checkpoints in the UK.

I agree it’s a bit of a daft rule – all the more so as it’s not enforced properly. I’m gone through security with stuff over the size limit in my bag that I’ve forgotten about, while being queried at other times over stuff that met the requirements.

By: CT

CT — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:25:32 +0000

Re the “mixing” threat: like many frequent flyers who are also 1) thrifty, and 2) environmentally aware, I always bring my own empty water bottle with me when I travel. I fill it inside the security zone. Never has TSA said anything about this empty container as I’ve passed through screening. So, whether or not all the stuff that’s sold inside the secure zone is screened, I wouldn’t need to buy a bottled drink in order to have a mixing container for making something incendiary out of various substances.

IMHO, it’s time for the liquids ban to go. And I’m a scientist with a strong background in chemistry, married to an airline pilot with 22 years in the US military. We know something about relative threats and the liquid ban is taking time, money, and attention away from the directions we should be looking right now.

By: John

John — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:46:03 +0000

Hapgood you’re wrong.

According to the UK Homeoffice, who controls the checkpoints, they’re going to spend millions of pounds over the next few years to update the checkpoint scanners so they can distiguish between liquids. Once that’s in place, they’ll cancel the ban.

The US can not implement the same system due to cost.

By: Hapgood

Hapgood — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:08:17 +0000

By the way, John, the “scanning” in question consists of putting the boxes of bottles through the very same x-ray machine used for scanning hand luggage. I once had to wait for 15 minutes at a nearly empty checkpoint for the boxes to be scanned.

Because I wanted to fly today, I refrained from asking the obvious question: If a regular x-ray scan of bottles sold at extortionate prices is good enough to distinguish between beverages and explosives, why wouldn’t it work for normally-priced bottles passengers bring themselves? I guess it’s best take the TSA’s advice and “try not to overthink these guidelines.” Any logic associated with the War on Liquids is classified for national security reasons.

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:07:46 +0000

I just roll my eyes at the fact that I have made it through security with a small Leatherman in my bag but got the hairy eyeball for my mascara. Heaven forbid I give makeovers on the flight. The ban itself is not worth the efforts we put into it, especially since there are more cost-effective ways to go about these things that cause less hassle the traveler.

By: Hapgood

Hapgood — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:03:08 +0000

The conviction of the bombers has now “sealed the deal” as far as the TSA is concerned. It’s a decisive Victory for the TSA. It has not only defeated a terrorist plot, but has utterly annihilated every critic of the liquid and gel restrictions. The TSA can wield it as a wonderful weapon to blow away anyone who utters a peep in complaint or opposition. Indeed, every airport screener has reason to rejoice at the defeat of an enemy– not al-Qaeda, but the public who challenges and criticizes them rather than automatically respecting and obeying them just because they wear a uniform.

It doesn’t matter whether the plot was actually plausible, or even if the Brits sensibly conclude that the restrictions are more trouble than they’re worth. The War on Liquids is, and shall ever be, a permanent fixture of air travel in the United States. And the reason for this is has more to do with politics than with “security.”

Since we’re stuck with the War on Liquids, I think it would be better to refocus our criticism on the inconsistent, arbitrary, and often stupid way it’s implemented at airport checkpoints. I can’t imagine how such inconsistency can do anything to make the restrictions effective, or how their “leaders” could defend it.

The bottom line is that the “experts” need to look at the supposedly simple “3-1-1″ rules and work out the actual wrinkles implications of implementing them with real people at real airports. They’ve had enough time to figure that out. Then they need to break that all down into simple, consistent rules appropriate for airport screeners of varying intelligence, and then train all the screeners thoroughly consistently. That would reduce the needless difficulty for passengers, while maintaining (supposedly) effective protection against anyone stupid enough to repeat the London plot.