# Airline fluid restrictions: do they serve any purpose? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 5, 2015, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008 "2015-01-05T04:14:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/21 "2015-01-05T16:26:33Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > We are talking in this thread SOLELY about liquids and I’m not aware of the energy density of any liquid explosives being even remotely comparable to C4 or Nitroglycerin. > > If I’m wrong then please fight my ignorance. If you sort [this table](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_effectiveness_factor) by relative effectiveness, you’ll get a sense of how powerful the compound is, with TNT being 1.00. Some liquid explosives on that list include EGDN, DEGDN, nitroglycerin, and nitromethane, not that all of them are suitable for the purposes we’re talking about. There are other liquid explosives not on that list as well. One such explosive not listed on the table was partially responsible for blowing up Korean Air Flight 858 in 1987. According to Wikipedia, that airliner was destroyed with 340 grams of C-4 and 700 ml of a liquid explosive. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/22 "2015-01-05T16:53:35Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Some liquid explosives on that list include EGDN, DEGDN, nitroglycerin, and nitromethane, not that all of them are suitable for the purposes we’re talking about. > > . One such explosive not listed on the table was partially responsible for blowing up Korean Air Flight 858 in 1987. According to Wikipedia, that airliner was destroyed with 340 grams of C-4 and 700 ml of a liquid explosive. Well how many of these are odorless and look like water or another harmless liquid? Seems to me that if the X-ray scan shows suspicious liquid bottles its easily solved by just asking the passenger to take a nice big swig of the liquid and watching them swallow it. If they refuse then drag them aside and confiscate it. As far Korean Air Flight 858 that was state sponsored terrorism (North Korea) so it presumably used chemicals not readily available to non-state actors. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/23 "2015-01-05T16:54:02Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > if you don’t think you could do something nefarious with a few liters of liquid explosive you’re not being creative enough. Nobody is arguing that. We’re saying that if you don’t think there are ways to get a liter of liquid through the current TSA, then you’re not being creative enough. Heck, you don’t need to imagine it : just read this thread for examples. Anyway, my humble partial answer to the OP is that fluid restrictions serve the noble purpose of helping to transfer money from travelers to airport concessions. Which means more income for airports and so less money needed from airlines. I’m sure that has nothing to do with why airlines haven’t pushed back at all against the liquid bans. Just like the TSA checking IDs serves the noble purpose of preventing people like you and me from re-selling tickets (thereby increasing income to airlines). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/24 "2015-01-05T16:56:49Z")
Ah - I should add that an AL Qaeda operative placed a bomb on Philippine Airlines flight 484 in 1994. The bomb was in a contact lens solution bottle. The blast severely disabled the plane which managed to make it to an airport for a safe landing, with only one person killed. There’s been speculation that if the bomber had not switched seats, the blast would have reached the fuel tanks rather than affecting the cargo area. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/25 "2015-01-05T17:02:55Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Well how many of these are odorless and look like water or another harmless liquid? Seems to me that if the X-ray scan shows suspicious liquid bottles its easily solved by just asking the passenger to take a nice big swig of the liquid and watching them swallow it. If they refuse then drag them aside and confiscate it. > > As far Korean Air Flight 858 that was state sponsored terrorism (North Korea) so it presumably used chemicals not readily available to non-state actors. I can’t claim to be any kind of expert on airport security screening procedures, so I simply do not know the answer to whether some security procedures or better with respect to liquids or others are useless with respect to liquids. What I am saying is that the volumes of liquids (or other materials) being discussed are very significant with respect to the safety of flight. You asked whether one or two 500ml bottles could do harm to an aircraft if they were filled with explosives, and the answer is yes. With respect to your other question, no, the liquid explosive used in the Korean Air bombing was not terribly exotic. It was invented during World War II, so we aren’t talking about nanomaterials or space-age science projects. ETA: not to mention that if TSA asked me to take a swig of contact lens solution, that would be a very odd request. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/26 "2015-01-05T17:11:15Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > Nobody is arguing that. That’s the thrust of the OP, actually: > [@coremelt](#): > > Wheres the actual evidence that with 1 litre of an accelerant or 1 litre of an liquid explosive you could bring a plane down? > [@Quercus](#): > > We’re saying that if you don’t think there are ways to get a liter of liquid through the current TSA, then you’re not being creative enough. > > Heck, you don’t need to imagine it : just read this thread for examples. Yes, for example, post #9. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/27 "2015-01-05T17:12:32Z")
Your cite actually proves my point, it was Philippine Airlines flight 434 part of the Bojinka plot and before the liquid restrictions: > **[Philippine Airlines Flight 434](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434)** > > Philippine Airlines Flight 434, sometimes referred to as PAL434 or PR434, was a flight on December 11, 1994, from Cebu to Tokyo on a Boeing 747-283B that was seriously damaged by a bomb, killing one passenger and damaging vital control systems. The bombing was a test run of the unsuccessful Bojinka terrorist attacks. The Boeing 747 (tail number EI-BWF) was flying the second leg of a route from Ninoy Aquino International Airport (formerly Manila International Airport), Pasay in the Philippines, Au... Despite the lack of restrictions on liquids they failed to bring down an airliner and caused only minor damage. And about the Korean Airlines bombing, if you won’t reveal what the substance was we can’t have any meaningful discussion about it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/28 "2015-01-05T17:16:56Z")
PLX. And I wouldn’t use the Philippine Airlines event as a rationale that liquid explosives aren’t dangerous. The plane could well have been downed in the ocean, and it was fortunate that it did not. Think about if I shot you in the chest with a 9mm bullet: you may well survive. But you surviving being shot by a 9mm is not logically good evidence that a 9mm bullet will not kill a good percentage of the time. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/29 "2015-01-05T17:27:27Z")
Sure the threat from liquid explosives is real. But the blanket “ban any liquids over 100 ml” is a ridiculous over the top response. A sensible response would be to say each passenger can have 1-2 bottles of 500 ml unless for medical reasons. If they have more than that, they get dragged aside and quizzed. And yes then asking them to take a swig or put a drop into their eye (if its labelled as saline) is a perfectly reasonable response by security. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/30 "2015-01-05T17:30:39Z")
As I’ve said before, what I know about security screening will not even fill a 3.4 oz container, but I can’t see that there is a factual answer to whether or not it is a good policy to ban most liquids over a certain size. In the meantime, perhaps [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHfiMoJUDVQ) will bring a smile to your face after having your OJ seized. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/31 "2015-01-06T01:41:18Z")
Another question I was hoping to have answered. Are liquid explosives different to solid explosives in that they wouldn’t already be picked up by the measures already in place ? Eg X-ray machines, random swabs, dog sniffers? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/32 "2015-01-06T03:02:14Z")
In the most recent aviation accident there were more than 20 people from the same church on board, it’s common for footy teams to travel together on tours (which can be upwards of 30 pax) - how hard would it really be to assemble 1-2 litres of fluid once through security or on a plane? And making a hole in the wall of a plane, whether or not the plane “survives” is a big deal - can you imagine, if this started happening once a day, at random, across the world - what would happen to the aviation industry (regardless of how many people were killed). Sometimes I think terrorists are looking in the wrong places to make their presence felt. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/33 "2015-01-06T10:42:42Z")
The putative “intent” of this rule was not to stop people carrying on explosives, as has been implied/asserted. It was to prevent people carrying on the harmless elements of unusual two part explosives, when, unlike ordinary two part explosives, the elements could not be detected by other means. In particular, this rule was supposed to be a method to protect against “threats” like TATP, triacetone triperoxide, made with acetone and peroxide. So no, airline fluid restrictions do not server any security purpose. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2015, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008/34 "2015-01-06T17:49:11Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > I’m not an expert in either aviation or security, but as a lay person, liquid explosives don’t concern me near as much as accelerants. How bad of a cabin fire could someone cause with 3.5 oz of improvised jellied gasoline? > > I wouldn’t be surprised though if it were a lot more difficult to cause a conflagration than it seems. I would be more worried about someone walking up and nailing someone with a full epi pen combined with a large syringe [non insulin type] with a full vial of insulin. _That_ could cause serious ‘distraction’ on a flight. Or maybe bilateral epi pens [since I tend to travel with both of them.] Medications improperly [properly?] used can be deadly. Poison is in the dose … \* Though there have been planes with cabin fires that have landed safely. - and I currently have 120 doses of [colchicine](http://www.bpac.org.nz/BPJ/2007/September/colchicine.aspx). Not an instant death, but a rather painful lingering one. If I were traveling with my med bag, I have 3 months of medication in it if you catch me on the way home after doing the refill shuffle. I could probably manage to poison at least 5 people and make another 10 fairly ill. If I was peeved when I was flushing my fathers supply of fentanyl, I could have killed 10 people just by slapping a patch on them. That is one seriously scary med. Not as scary as vet strength [etorphin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etorphine), which _always_ comes with the antidote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/airline-fluid-restrictions-do-they-serve-any-purpose/709008.md?page=1)