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

561–570 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#561

Post by zwily »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #265
fc417fc802 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting to contrast this with my experience flying out of China. I was taken to a private room and shown the digital colored X-ray of my bag on which a box had been drawn around an empty lighter, I was asked to remove it myself and hand it over, and I went on my way. All in under 5 minutes, no pat down, no fuss, and no one physically rifled through my belongings. (Granted I was a tourist so that might w…

A lighter is very different from a weapon. I'm sure they can see everything they need to see with X-rays. Do you think they find a white guy flying out of China to be a likely terrorist? (I'm assuming you are white or asian.) I've never had a bad experience with TSA but I hate taking off my shoes and all. I really question the value of those security measures.

You don’t have to take your shoes off anymore!

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#562

Post by quickthrowman »

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…

> 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 really don't want it to be easy for any random person to cause such fire.

It is that easy for a random person to cause such a fire.

It’s probably not that difficult to figure out how to overcharge lithium ion batteries so that they’re prone to catching fire or exploding when connected to a resistor that will overheat them.

Wireless relays are commodity items you can order online from hundreds of vendors.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#563

Post by ascagnel_ »

edm0nd wrote: post #87
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…

Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater. TSA Chief Out After Agents Fail 95 Percent of Airport Breach Tests "In one case, an alarm sounded, but even during a pat-down, the screening officer failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to an undercover agent's back. In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as…

I'd believe that. I was in a situation where a bag started smoking _in the security checkpoint_ (it was a camera battery failing), and the TSA agents all abandoned the checkpoint. As a result, the FAA issued a full ground stop and had re-screen every passenger in the airport.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#564

Post by 0x3f »

simmonmt wrote: post #554
0x3f wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but what do you think the alternative is? There is limited space close to the entrance of the terminal, it has to be rationed somehow. Also what happens in practice is people take advantage. A trust-based 30s wouldn't work. Even with the current fees you can hang around Heathrow drop off and see the police having to move people along, check unatended cars, etc.

The alternative is not charging. JFK somehow manages. Yes there's traffic, but it keeps slowly moving.

JFK is pure hell compared to Heathrow, never mind to an actually well-run airport. I'll stick to paying for my externalities.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#565

Post by mendelmaleh »

gambiting wrote: post #261
opello wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be able to fit those 10 100mL bottles into a single 1 quart resealable bag. At most you'd probably get about 9.46 of those 10 bottles in the bag but in practice it's fewer still. 1 US liquid quart is about 946.353 milliliters.

>>1 US liquid quart is about 946.353 milliliters. Why not just say 1 litre and have the same limit as the rest of the world.

Because we have quart-sized ziplock bags here, liter bags not so much.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#566

Post by traceroute66 »

Reefersleep wrote: post #427
SapporoChris wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 90's USA was sensible. I was flying with a thermos of hot coffee in my carry on. As soon as they took out the thermos and felt the heat radiating from the lid the agent said, "I don't think they would heat it", smiled and passed me thru. Now when I fly I have to be careful. When they ask purpose of visit I say sightseeing. I used to say tourist, but with my accent that once caused alarm when the agent thought…

I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

> I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

Its like those stupid questions on US immigration forms, e.g.

"Do you intend to engage in the United States in Espionage ?" or "Did you ever order, incite or otherwise participate in the persecution of any person ?"

It's like, really ? Do they seriously think someone who should answer yes will really answer yes ?

Might as well just turn up at the immigration desk, slap your wrists down on the counter and invite them to handcuff you .... why bother with the form !

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#567

Post by amelius »

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…

Because the theater raises the threshold.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#568

Post by red_admiral »

insom wrote: post #536
Scoundreller wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heathrow is annoying in that you need to go through security every time you change terminal (or enter one for the first time when arriving internationally). Had to go through security 4 times in a day due to a colossal fuck up by an airline. Each time they flagged something different on a different person. Still no idea what they were looking for in a purse 3 of 4 times. It’s wildly inconsistent and I kinda doubt it’…

The different Heathrow terminals have different security requirements. I suspect it’s based on countries they fly to from each terminal, but it could be age if equipment. It is frustrating for security to act like you’re a total idiot for following a process another terminal says is fine (like leaving very small electronics like Kindles in your bag). Oh, well.

Indeed. Other airports in Europe even have separate terminals or areas for Schengen and non-Schengen destinations, with passport control and sometimes security scans again between them.

Bonus points to Zurich (Schengen but not EU, just to test the edge cases) - I think they have an airside metro where each car is segregated for a different security category of passenger.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#569

Post by traceroute66 »

michaelt wrote: post #271
kleiba wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

To be fair, I entirely understand the absolute necessity for this.

The reason for its introduction is before hand the PHVs (Uber etc.) of this world would, instead of using the car parks, go up to the drop-off area and wait there.

Because there was no charge and no penalty, what they would do is drop off a passenger and then sit there waiting for their next job to ping on their screen.

This became a particular problem at Heathrow T5 where the drop off area is relatively tiny.

The result would be that at busy hours, private individuals attempting to drop off their friends and family would be unable to find space and end-up double-parking and causing safety hazards.

For a while they tried to use airport Police to enforce it, but the volume of PHVs was just far too great. Hence the cameras, charges and penalties were introduced.

It should also be noted that at Heathrow, if you do not want to pay the £7, you can instead drop people off for free at the Long Term Car park and they can get the shuttle bus back to the terminal.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#570

Post by ndriscoll »

rusk wrote: post #447
Reefersleep wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

Believe it or not it’s a question on the pre-clearance form for travel to the US: ”are you or have you ever been a member of a terrorist organisation” - I always wondered what the rationale for that was

It could probably be part of the premise for a gag in a hypothetical Liar Liar 2 after Jim Carrey haphazardly finds himself mixed up in one 30 minutes earlier in the movie, so there's that.
Post reply on HN