Was this on El-Al, or otherwise Israel-related, or is this about non-US security bowing down to TSA directives?
Because if the former, I’d like to apologize “on behalf” and possibly do a bit of ‘splainin’…
On a similar note, it wasn’t until literally a month or two ago that I realized I’ve been using gallon sized ziplock bags and not quart sized ones since. . . well, since the dumb rule was instituted. I take at least a dozen flights a year and I was never once stopped or questioned because of this .
One funny thing I noted last time when traveling last month is that the TSA Blog is just full of LOLz, as they say. I was trying to figure out if I could bring something on the plane or not (don’t even remember what it is) and on one TSA Blog post, it actually said at the end that sometimes you’ll get different answers about what’s ok and what’s not at different airports. Why? To confuse the terrorists, of course. No, they really said that.
I’m not a real well-behaved drunk and I’m allergic to weed. So no.
And yeah, I know that was a joke, but I wonder if the rules we have now had about the same level of thought put into them.
I was on Iceland Air and it is about nonUS security and the TSA garbage theater.
I think they should lock the pilots in their cabin, and issue everybody their own tazer and let any terrorists fight it out against all the passengers. I could always get the ice spikes for my crutches:D
Dumbest TSA rule ever. My wife wanted to bring a 100 ml container of “baby” applesauce for her own consumption. They claimed there was a rule that baby food was allowed only if you are bringing a baby and they confiscated it.
In Canada and in Barbados, they do not examine shoes (unless you are flying to the US when they have special inspection lines).
It’s stupid. I ignore it and 90%+ of the time the TSA doesn’t confiscate my liquid overage. I no longer have the time to fly much unfortunately, but one bright spot of that is that I spend less time dealing with security theater.
Scrap it. IMHO terrorists are like trolls. Acknowlging that they are of any concern at all to you only encourages them.
Do some due dilligence at the checkpoint so the nasties aren’t carrying on assault rifles and leave it at that. As a perk, part of your inflight safety brief informs the passengers that should someone announce their intent to interfere with the flightplan for nefarious ends, no charges of any kind will be pressed against those who thwart the attempt–every passenger becomes a 00X agent. If someone still manages to blow up a plane you let your intel system do its job and ferret out their infrastructre and take it down. Meanwhile you redirect the financial resources toward thwarting any other problem that is killing far more of your citizenry: heart disease, obesity, diabetes, car accidents, lightning strikes, bear attacks, etc.
So, this is gonna sound crazy, and maybe it is, but I feel the rule is attempting to prevent something that statistically is almost impossible. I vote to eliminate the rule UNTIL it is successfully used by a terrorist, because otherwise, its just an overreaction
I don’t agree with the rule either, but it was based on some sort of actual terrorist attempt.
Cite please?
There are actually plenty of substances that explode (easily) when mixed, TATP and HMTD most well known among them. They need to be mixed with some care, but this might be accomplished in an aircraft lavatory. No bunsen burners required.
This was the plot of the 2006 transatlantic bombings, after which liquids were prohibited on planes. The problem is that since the plot was never put in action, it’s questionable if it could have succeeded. The current system has enough loopholes to allow such a plot to be performed (fill a bottle of lens liquid with your liquid of choice, shrink wrap it, you’re set to go), yet it hasn’t been attempted. ’
This is for one of two reasons: either the terrorists themselves consider the chance of success so small that they won’t even try it, or the threat isn’t there at all.
So, this is security theater. It does plug a minor hole, but the thing being plugged isn’t a dike but a net. So I vote to remove the rule and shift the resources to proactive security instead.
In the past year, I have flown all over the place and I still have never once had my toiletries in a one-quart bag that I pull out and put in a bin. I’ve always just left my stuff in a freezer bag in my backpack and send it through the scanner. Never had any problems.
One that failed miserably. Didn’t the authorities say that the explosive wouldn’t have gone off anyway?
HA Wouldn’t it be funny if we all started taking ziplock bags that were just slightly larger than a quart, and little containers that were slightly larger than 3oz. Not enough to really notice.
Then make them slightly larger, then slightly larger.
It’s not like they weigh stuff. I’ve seen them read the labels to see how much something was, but what if the label was printed wrong…
Not an attempt, but a plan. Agents found guys in the UK were planning to take down a plane by mixing liquids to make an explosive. From what I remember they weren’t very far along in their planning, but far enough to get shipped to Quitmo.
Are they actually considering eliminating it, or is the OP just wishful thinking?
It’s pure Security Theater. Toss it.
From wiki:
“A second substance, a type of high explosive, would be hidden within an AA battery; this small explosive charge would be sufficient to detonate the main bomb. The charge would be detonated by linking the bottle of explosives to a light bulb and a disposable camera. The charge from the camera’s flash unit would be enough to trigger the explosion.[15]”
The nature of the liquid explosives required a smaller bomb to kick things off. I think we should all be thankful we can still bring AA batters, light bulbs, and disposable cameras on to planes.
You would be [hypothetically] better off in bringing 2 chemicials that would make a toxic gas than trying to blow up the plane with a multipart liquid explosive.
There are probably more types of noxious chemicals that would be possible than explosives [though I am not a chemist, one might be along shortly to slam my idea.]