Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#271

Post by michaelt »

kleiba wrote: post #226
grepfru_it wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A plastic water bottle isn’t triggering a tsa pre check metal detector. I’m totally doing this next trip

I've never done that yet I've never had any trouble finding water past security or even on a plane?!

Airport prices in the UK for recreational travel work like so:

Flight from London to Barcelona: £16

Bottle of water past security: £5

Train to airport: £26

Taxi enters drop-off area for 30 seconds: £7

A person who wants to get the advertised flight at the advertised price has to be very careful.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#272

Post by gambiting »

dexwiz wrote: post #107
nlawalker wrote: post #15

Let me get this straight. If the article is correct, the new capabilities are related to better detection of large liquid containers, not determination of whether or not the liquid is dangerous. So - you couldn’t take large amounts of liquids previously because some liquids in large amounts might be able to be weaponized. If you were caught with too much liquid (in sum total, or in containers that are too large) they…

Have you never been screened where they swab your items and stick it in a machine? That is to detect explosives. They can use the first machine to target people for follow up screening.

So far, this machine has been used to reliably, 10/10 times, reject and discard my nivea deodorant.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#273

Post by smcl »

lmm wrote: post #95
PcChip wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did they force you to do that?

Anything a border official says is implicitly backed with the threat of, at a minimum, detention without trial and without basic humane treatment like access to drinking water. Heathrow has well publicised cases (and is not unusual in this).

Heathrow is a fucking miserable place with spiteful staff and it would not surprise me one bit if someone decided to fuck with a traveller this way. I saw a girl running to catch a bus to another terminal for a connecting flight, and the guy controller her made an enormous stink about her "breathing on me". She was polite and apologetic but she got pulled aside and made to wait for everyone else to get through, got sternly chastised before being allowed to continue (whereupon she missed the connecting bus and presumably her flight). Same trip I saw them them shouting and swearing at disabled travellers who needed wheelchairs. Every other member of staff in the airport was stood around fucking with their phones and seemed furious whenever they had to do their job.

Horrible airport, avoid at all costs.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#274

Post by wakawaka28 »

reeredfdfdf wrote: post #187
closewith wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber), I think you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a... The only reason you believe aircraft bombings aren't being stopped is because you live in a world where rigourous security has stopped all aircraft bombings.

Yeah. The "security theater" absolutely does play its part in stopping attacks. Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in. They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. Over past few decades many airliners have crashed because out of control fire in the cabin / cargo hold. I real…

Most would-be attackers are not suicidal, I suppose. You would have to be in order to start a fire on a plane that you are on.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#276

Post by sschueller »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #71

This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this. The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me. The…

Is a open flame enough to ignite those liquids and don't they need something to press against to "explode" and not just cause a giant flame like gasoline?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#277

Post by wakawaka28 »

sethammons wrote: post #216
reeredfdfdf wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. The "security theater" absolutely does play its part in stopping attacks. Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in. They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. Over past few decades many airliners have crashed because out of control fire in the cabin / cargo hold. I real…

Did you drop a sarcasm tag? Anyone can make a fire on a plane as they allow lighters on a plane, and batteries, and any number of flammable objects. None of that is facing any scrutiny nor stopping crazy people from being crazy.

I've heard that cell phones often catch fire on planes, and the crews know how to deal with that. I guess they have to because the odds of one going up are pretty good across so many flights.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#278

Post by lagniappe »

Fervicus wrote: post #268
lagniappe wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you live, but where I live, we do.

I've traveled all over Europe and North America and have taken a lot of trains. Not once did I have to remove my shoe, scan my baggage, or had any kind of liquid restrictions.

You're very fortunate, you'll have to teach us your ways some day

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#279

Post by koshergweilo »

throwaway290 wrote: post #211
bruce511 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gotta love the TSA. They serve no real purpose, but its a monster too big to kill, staffed by people who desperately cling to the notion they're doing something important. They don't stop hijackings (locking the cockpit door does that), they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber), they don't stop weapons (lots of airports outside the US have simple met…

> they don't stop weapons (lots of airports outside the US have simple metal detectors for that.) There are 3D printed guns.

Don't you still need metal bullets for the 3d printed gun?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#280

Post by [deleted] »

fooker wrote: post #221
jandrewrogers wrote: post #71

This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this. The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me. The…

These liquids show up as slightly different colors in the new CT scan machines and this can finally be reliably detected by software. This is also why a bunch of airports no longer ask you to take electronics out of your bags.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN