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

UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 252 posts

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#121

Post by bombcar »

a2tech wrote: post #94
locallost wrote: post #12

I flew yesterday and in the plane realized I had some water from my daughter in the backpack. It was scanned and missed of course. And why wouldn't they miss it, it's a waste of time anyway. But at least they harassed a 3-year old to stand in a certain way to get scanned and fail at it. Unrelated, but I've come to believe it's a form of social welfare. So much policing for nothing, not just airports, wars on drugs et…

Its a jobs program for the unemployable. That and political pork. The TSA is a complete failure at every level and is laughably bad at everything but draining money from the taxpayer and stepping on citizens rights. We should go back to metal detectors staffed by airport provided staff and scan checked bags for bombs (which is something that actually kind of works).

It’s well known that those who can’t cut it to be police will go be prison guards. And the ones who can’t even meet that bar end up at TSA.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#122

Post by vlovich123 »

meghan_rain wrote: post #20
dtech wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term you're looking for is security theatre

Right, but to their defense, there have not been 9/11 attacks or anything remotely similar since 9/11... so either it was all fake anyways or the security theater also deters potential low IQ attackers?

I also found a magic rock that keeps away tigers. Would you like to purchase it? No tigers have ever been spotted in my area since I found it.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#123

Post by sokoloff »

vkou wrote: post #62
meghan_rain wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but to their defense, there have not been 9/11 attacks or anything remotely similar since 9/11... so either it was all fake anyways or the security theater also deters potential low IQ attackers?

The biggest thing that stopped 9/11 attacks since 9/11 was locks on cockpit doors. The second biggest thing that stopped them since 9/11 is passenger awareness that they could just... Not let a few assholes with boxcutters fly a plane into a building.

Since mid-morning on 9/11, in fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#124

Post by Eric_WVGG »

MarcusE1W wrote: post #109
Arch-TK wrote: post #47

Recently at Stansted I had an encounter with a security staff member who was of the opinion that both clotted cream and butter were liquids. (Note, I wasn't the one trying to get either of these onto the plane.) Her entire argument seemed to rest on the case that they were spreadable. I don't think she did well in GCSE physics.

In the 2000s I worked in Munich and exported ‘Leberkäse’ (a meat paste that you can bake in the oven) from Munich almost every week for family and friends. Although it looks quite similar to plastic explosives the security team had not once a problem with it.

oh yeah, candles. Expect a fun time at the x-ray if you fly with a scented candle as a christmas gift.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#125

Post by rob74 »

wil421 wrote: post #103
amelius wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Did they fix the doors/protocol in the meantime?

You aren’t supposed to let a pilot be alone in the cockpit and they violated protocol when this happened. 2 authorized personnel should be in the cockpit at all times but German airlines dropped the rule.

I'm not an expert, but the Wikipedia article sounds like this protocol was implemented after the Germanwings crash:

> In response to the incident and the circumstances of the co-pilot's involvement, aviation authorities in some countries implemented new regulations that require the presence of two authorised personnel in the cockpit at all times. Three days after the incident, the European Aviation Safety Agency issued a temporary recommendation for airlines to ensure that at least two crew members—including at least one pilot—were in the cockpit for the entire duration of the flight. Several airlines announced that they had already adopted similar policies voluntarily. But by 2016, the EASA stopped recommending the two-person rule, instead advising airlines to perform a risk assessment and decide for themselves whether to implement it. Germanwings and other German airlines dropped the procedure in 2017.

I guess the underlying assumption is that the regular medical tests that pilots are subjected to should keep pilots capable of mass murder-suicide out of a cockpit. Indeed, Lubitz had been declared "unfit for work" by a doctor, but apparently the doctor trusted Lubitz himself to pass this on to his employer, because "medical secrecy requirements prevented his physician from making this information available to Germanwings".

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#126

Post by grishka »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #98
corbulo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The war on drugs is as winnable as the war on murder or the war on petty theft. Just because it doesn't go away doesn't mean you failed at enforcing it. War on drugs is just a shitty political campaign slogan everyone fell for. It's a fantastic one from the perspective of the politician, because they'd never be held accountable for 'losing' it during their tenure.

The war on drugs is unwinnable because, in general, human beings want to take drugs. Or want to have the freedom to take drugs. Most people don't want to murder or steal.

Besides, taking drugs is a victimless crime. Theft or murder, on the other hand, both have very real victims.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#127

Post by alistairSH »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #56
locallost wrote: post #12

I flew yesterday and in the plane realized I had some water from my daughter in the backpack. It was scanned and missed of course. And why wouldn't they miss it, it's a waste of time anyway. But at least they harassed a 3-year old to stand in a certain way to get scanned and fail at it. Unrelated, but I've come to believe it's a form of social welfare. So much policing for nothing, not just airports, wars on drugs et…

It may be a sample size of one and whatnot, but as a European, the best security experience I've had has been in the US (LAX), by far. In my neck of the woods, I have to take out basically everything from my carry-on. Laptop, camera, lenses, you name it, they want it out. Phone, keys, ditto. They usually ask for the belt to come out, too, and sometimes even the shoes. And this is even for internal flights. LAX, by co…

It's been mixed for me.

San Salvador (SAL/MSLP) was probably the most obnoxious, with a double security configuration for US-bound flights. Basically had to pass through security in Lima, then again at SAL, and due to the config, it meant you couldn't get food in the main SAL terminal and wait at your gate - you had to eat it before entering the "US Zone" and then hope you weren't thirsty again. Also, everything electronic out of the bag, dump fluids, etc.

Heathrow wasn't great. Long lines for security. Also, they had some buggy facial recognition system that couldn't match me (at the gate) to a photo taken a few hours earlier in the security line. And the gate agent was completely clueless about what to do next. They eventually let me board anyways. Not sure what they were trying to accomplish - I had already passed through security, the final face check was at the gate during boarding.

Reykjavik was fine, no different than a US hub. Same for Rome and Lima.

Inverness and Edinburgh had typical checks, but the airports are so small and uncrowded that it's pretty stress-free. The only "problem" I've had a both is the ticket agents tend to show up moments before boarding begins (first flight of day), which gets my anxiety up some - I like to be at the gate relaxing well in advance.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#129

Post by TheCoelacanth »

peterstjohn wrote: post #102
Arch-TK wrote: post #47

Recently at Stansted I had an encounter with a security staff member who was of the opinion that both clotted cream and butter were liquids. (Note, I wasn't the one trying to get either of these onto the plane.) Her entire argument seemed to rest on the case that they were spreadable. I don't think she did well in GCSE physics.

I once travelled with a 5kg vat of fondant icing on a transatlantic flight. "Yes, it looks very much like Semtex, but it's fine!" Still not exactly sure how I got away with it…

People often manage to bring actual weapons onto flights, so it's unsurprising that they frequently fail to catch liquids.

Re: UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with new scanners

#130

Post by antiterra »

pjc50 wrote: post #100
dtech wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term you're looking for is security theatre

Yup. It's baffling how quickly the mask and travel check measures were dropped, even at a time when COVID was causing multiple airliners worth of deaths per day, while the totally pointless liquid bans remain. The liquid bomb threat really is the thing that conspiracy theorists would love: it's a totally made up possible threat by the Big State that hasn't been seen in the wild and is used to justify inconveniencing…

“We can't breathe in business class. Somebody's got mace or something.”

“Nobody knows who stabbed who, and we can't even get up to business class right now 'cause nobody can breathe.” - Betty Ong, Flight 11

Not necessarily explosive, but tactical chemical attacks have been a known capability for a while, and part of anti-terrorist training long before 2001. Something truly sophisticated from a superpower state would likely escape detection, (and therefore likely implicate such a state,) but the Tokyo Sarin attack by a cult in 1995 involved big bags of liquid.

(This isn’t a justification of any particular security search, just pointing out that liquid agents are not a non-existent threat.)

Post reply on HN