Now UK bans carry-on lappies, phones, slabs on flights from six nations amid bomb fears The UK has banned airline passengers on direct inbound flights from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa from taking a range of electronic devices into the cabin due to fears of a terrorist attack. The decision, which mirrors a ban by the US Homeland Security from today and which was also based on intelligence …
The carry-on is x-rayed, I've seen video screen, and I can easily tell what would not be authentic (as I've repaired all kinds of laptops / tablets / gadgets). If there is any doubt at all on video screen, they examine it, question you and do extra search.
This is "security theatre".
I once asked a german airport security guy who swiped my notebook for explosives residue what the fuzz was about. I brought up exactly your point, namely that the scan of the device should reveal anything out of the ordinary, so why bother with a swipe?
His reply was that those carry on scanners do not show the composition of the material they scan. Only the specific density. And that certain explosives have a specific density that bang-on similar to those of the insides of battery cells.
For that reason they single out notebook batteries that look odd for additional screening (mine was a Lenovo x220t extended battery that sticks out on the back of the machine), aside from that the scanner every now and then notifies them to swipe a particular notebook. No idea if that's a random function or image analysis driven.
Can anyone confirm that thing about the scanning for density or that the battery contents are similar in specific density to explosives?
"Can anyone confirm that thing about the scanning for density or that the battery contents are similar in specific density to explosives?"
You can sometimes have a look at what the person at the scanner sees. Yes, it is a picture showing the density of the material. I think they want to scan your laptop separately for two reasons: One, it hides other stuff in your luggage - they might not be able to see the bomb behind your laptop. Two, they can ask you to turn your laptop on. Laptops with battery replaced with explosives don't work anymore.
And yes, you can have explosives designed to have the same specific density as laptop batteries.
The carry-on is x-rayed, I've seen video screen, and I can easily tell what would not be authentic
I don't believe you'd be able to tell the deadly from the mundane with any reliability, and I've even less confidence that the minimum wage luggage screeners would, when they've spent hour after hour looking at the same x-rays of hold baggage.
In context, the amusing thing here is the assumption that terror threats would only ever be put on board in these destinations. Certainly these countries are unstable, and some have history on this, but announcing a ban? WTF?
Good point. And are we talking bomb bomb, or just a laptop with a dodgy battery that is merely an explosive Li-ion battery?
And what about trains? Can we ride on them without further subjection to wildly inappropriate security theater measures? Fucking muggles. Fear of the unknown and the unsubstantiated. Stay in your hovels and watch your clever fear-based news, muggles! Nothing to see in the outside world.
Lots of police presence at train station today (a city, but nowhere near London) but zero police presence at minor stations and other places en route (even though the same big lots of passenger filled intercity 125 go through those minor stations, non stop at 60 MPH and due to track curvature / bridges / tunnels many spots where an obstacle could be placed on track under a bridge / in tunnel so hard to see until closer than stopping distance.
I'm sure after a few days security theater will peter out.
Really need to research & get a T printed with risk of death due to terrorism in UK vs risk due to cars (inc pollution effects of cars) so I can open jacket to reveal it at next security theatre situation.
737A319 sized planes don't use luggage containers. The bags are loaded up a conveyor belt and stowed manually.
You have to get to A320 sized planes to get a fuselage large enough to contain containers. Even these are often fabric sided simply to save weight.
Full size containers with Alloy sides are for 777/A330 and above sized aircraft
EasyJet from memory only use smaller aircraft so anyone using them are stuffed.
BA uses A321's on AMM and 777's etc on the other routes to the gulf
RJ uses 787's, A330's and A340's on their long haul. RJ111 to London is normally a 787.
I have worked at QAIA (Amman) so this is where I got my info from.
Incorrect. The A320 and B737 family of planes *can* use luggage containers and in fact use them a lot! Just because some airlines don't (like low-cost airlines) doesn't mean the planes can't use LD1/2/3 containers. Most full-service carriers in Europe use LD containers for baggage (it's more efficient).
> My guess is the hold can be strengthened against an explosion,
Your guess is wildly wrong and unsound from an engineering point of view, since we are in the business of carrying specifically non-explosive cargo (some of which self-loads, and is then called "passengers"). The hold does have fire detection and suppression systems but that doesn't always work as well as it should and is designed to deal with conflagrations anyway.
I cannot see a plausible operational reason for this move (and neither can the DGSE nor the BND, btw), it looks purely designed to further inconvenience people travelling from certain destinations to the US.
"You're only supposed to blow the bloody hold off!"
Of course a plane in that state will always be fully air worthy, Yes siree!
As usual there's something we're not being told. I suggest either
a. Usual security theatre by idiots who wouldn't know a real threat if they fell over it and set it off in the process (of course it's possible to set a threat off, prollytitions do it all the time, don't be stupid.)
b. Think of something nasty other than spontaneous violent combustion that these larger toys could possibly be made capable of. Did anyone tell us that the threat was that the devices in question might EXPLODE?
If it's in the hold it's in a suitcase, probably amongst other suitcases, possible in a cargo container.
I suspect that'd be able to contain the explosion and give the people on the plane a better chance.
Also, the checked baggage disappears from the owner's sight, so unless they can track the device they won't even know if it made it onto the plane.
Basically, they're just trying to make things a bit harder and force a change of plan for some bombers.
"If it's in the hold it's in a suitcase, probably amongst other suitcases, possible in a cargo container.
I suspect that'd be able to contain the explosion and give the people on the plane a better chance."
Maybe. However, more than one plane has gone down due to a fire in the cargo hold. You don't need a boom, and a pile of suitcases is a dandy source of fuel.
This post has been deleted by its author
It is not that much colder in the cargo holds.
All current pax airliners have at least one cargo hold that is fully temp controlled, like the cabin. This is used for pet transport, on some models the heated area also contains flight electronics that need be kept crispy.
The other holds on any particular model are usually passively heated by blowing warm cabin exhaust air through or other means. Those will cool down to the single digits (Celsius) but never freeze. It may be 15 degrees below cabin temp, but compared to the outside temperature in the high negative double digits that is a moderate temperature difference.
Also, as I have seen it mentioned: all cargo holds are pressurized like the cabin.
" I doubt it matters to a bomber if they're 500 feet off the deck or 30,000."
It does matter as the aircraft won't be pressurised at low altitude. This is why the idiot with the laptop bomb in Somalia only managed to kill himself. He detonated it at too low an altitude.
Regarding putting things in the hold, there are technologies being developed to contain explosions. There are bomb resilient containers and a team of academics have developed a hold lining material that can contain explosions. Not in use yet though.
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/bomb-proof-fly-bag-1.483527
Simple. Have you seen how checked in luggage is handled once it's out of sight? It's thrown about all over the place by the ground. If there's a bomb in there then it will explode enroute to the plane while on the ground and not in the plane itself.
We all think it's because the ground crews are pricks but really it's an added security check.
Aircraft are designed to keep the hold away from critical systems: it takes a pretty big bomb in the hold to bring one down. In the cabin, you can kill people directly, you can punch a hole in the pressurized cabin, and you have the ability to control the placement of the device near critical systems.
They claim so it's not "manually" operated.
However a suitable timer is about £1 (maybe $1.50 or €1.50 a a quartz AA cell operated alarm clock has a mechanical pair of contacts closed once every 12 hours) or a barometric sensor about £15. Even someone clueless can buy two clocks and after breaking one apart in about a minute realise how simple this is.
This is complete nonsense as is the rather arbitrary size.
It's a gift to airport thieves and your gadget isn't usually covered by insurance if in the "check-in" baggage.
"They claim so it's not "manually" operated."
That indicates that either they are incredibly stupid or they think the rest of us are. How many people 'manually operate their alarm to wake themselves up? They don't! They set the alarm for the required time and the device does the rest. IIRC the thinking about the Brighton bomb in 1984 was planted at least weeks before and the timer was set. As you say, this is just theatre, albeit at an absurdly low level of credibility.
Strange how everyone is thinking "Bomb" here. It may well be that some smartalec has worked out how to build an xray-transparent firearm, but the limitation of this is that it is quite bulky. So, the only way to hide such a device is to build it into a laptop.
Hence the ban on things over a certain size that contain various sorts of electrickery and thus look on Xray to contain wires, batteries and so on. The specific danger here is from the terrorist having his plastic gun with him in the cabin; it doesn't matter if the thing is in the hold because he cannot get to it during the flight. It also doesn't matter if some twit is importing a highly impractical firearm into the country; it isn't as if the engineering expertise to build working firearms doesn't exist here.
"it is emerging that there is a credible threat of laptop batteries containing bombs. Xray scanners aren't necessarily picking up the new threats."
They won't be able to because they're made to have the same density as the battery cells. AND to get past the "turn it on" test, they don't replace ALL the cells with bombs, leaving at least a partially-working battery.
Surely that means you need an assembled bomb in the hold. I would think an assembled bomb is more likely to be detected via x-rays etc than one that needs to be put together in the cabin.
Hence luggage in the hold is likely to be safer as the detection rate is better.
Dunno maybe I'm putting too much faith in airport security.
... for government and corporate announcements.
"The safety of the travelling public is our highest priority"
I wonder what would happen if someone searched all available material for the phrase 'is our highest priority'? I'm willing to bet there'd be rather more than one 'thing' apparently 'highest' on the priority list.
Sigh...
"our top priority will always be to maintain the safety of British nationals"
I know what they're trying to say, but really they're just weasel words. If safety was their highest priority they'd ban all flights in, over and out of the country then they could guarantee that no-one would be killed or injured in or by a plane. Anyone who takes a boat to a foreign shore and flies from there only has themselves to blame if it goes wrong.
If they were honest they'd say that safety is very important, and they will take all reasonable measures to maximise the safety of passengers while attempting to minimise the trouble and disruption they suffer. But they don't seem worried about disruption. And how many people will die on American roads while the ban is in place?
I think that even late-model iPhones are larger than the allowable limits mentioned. But I guess we will see the policy reversed when enough political contributors are forced onto long-haul flights with kids who have had their personal gaming systems stuffed in the checked baggage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhHF7S_RdB0
I have a pair of galaxy s2 phones. The kids use those on flights as they are small, use usd cards full of stuff to watch and can take oodles of .epubs full size gizmos arent needed.
Problem is, the large powerbrick we share will probably be classed as a laptop by the security drone :(
"even late-model iPhones are larger than the allowable limits mentioned"
I read somewhere that the Plus models are bigger than the limits, but the non-Plus ones. So if you have a plain 6/6S/7, you're OK.
EDIT: comparing the limits in the article with the sizes published in the Unreliable Source, no, even the Plus ones aren't too big, just. (158 mm versus the cited 16 cm = 160 mm).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
