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

131–140 of 252 posts

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

#131

Post by esotericimpl »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #48
Grimburger wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been dozens of hijackings since 9/11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings#20...

To be fair there's been a lot less hijackings in the 2000s and 2010s compared with previous decades - although as the decline started in the 90's - its not likely to be solely due to increased security.

It's completely due to prior to 9/11 you left the hijackers alone and they would land the plane, get arrested or die in a shootout with the police.

Now if you attempt to hijack a plane 100-300 passengers will beat your ASS and stop you before you get anywhere near control of the aircraft.

There will never be another hijacking attack where the pilot loses control of the plane from a threat of a would be hijacker.

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

#132

Post by ChoGGi »

ornornor wrote: post #69
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 had cheese confiscated in Brussels “because we can’t tell the difference with C4 on the machine” I suspect they just fancied a nice lunch. Meanwhile I’ve flown a few times with a forgotten pocket knife in my carry on and more than 100mL of water. Nobody died and the plane landed safely at destination.

Did you lick the cheese?

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

#133

Post by mhh__ »

_petronius wrote: post #76
camillomiller wrote: post #55

In Berlin at BER I had someone from security straight up tell me that water being sold at a premium after security, with a profit for the airport shops that pay hefty rents, is the only reason for keeping up the 100ml liquids rule. That was a heated discussion point for a while, since the airport had to stop people from drinking tap water inside because of an e.coli infestation in the water system of the airport. We'…

I really don't get the BER hate. It's not only a huge improvement over SXF and TXL (minus T1 at TXL, RIP turning up 10 minutes before boarding), but it's a perfectly good airport in its own right. The building of it and the budget overrun was a disaster, and demonstrated the worst of infrastructure building in this country, but will happily die on the hill that the result is good, actually. (If we want to get into co…

Terrible or not in the past it's absolutely fine now IMO. Certainly for short hops.

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

#134

Post by cm2187 »

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 am also not aware, in the history of aviation, of a terrorist attack that was stopped at an airport security check.

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

#135

Post by anotherhue »

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.

Edinburgh airport were concerned about the squishy-but-still kind-of-solid lumps I was carrying through, but were ultimately charmed to discover it was haggis.

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

#136

Post by the__alchemist »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #118
pjc50 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Incorrect. Betwee 2006 and 2010, seven people were convicted in the uk for conspiring to attack passenger airplanes with liquid explosives (acetone peroxide according to wikipedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

The phase of matter doesn't strike me as an appropriate level of granularity.

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

#137

Post by pjc50 »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #118
pjc50 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 Incorrect. Betwee 2006 and 2010, seven people were convicted in the uk for conspiring to attack passenger airplanes with liquid explosives (acetone peroxide according to wikipedia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

Still not "in the wild"; they were arrested in the planning stages, and there is no evidence that at any point they successfully produced TATP let alone getting any of their components through security or whether it would have worked on a plane.

That was one group, thirteen years ago, and since then everyone is limited to 100ml? Forever?

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

#138

Post by carlmr »

antiterra wrote: post #130
pjc50 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

100ml of mace would be enough though, right? So why the limit?

Also why is liquid a special category? That doesn't make sense either.

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

#139

Post by navhc »

antiterra wrote: post #130
pjc50 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are non-liquid chemical attacks that could be facilitated from something like anthrax to powdered pepper spray. Disallowing liquids does nothing to stop those

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

#140

Post by jrootabega »

phantomathkg wrote: post #70
elthran wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, don't remind me of Singapore. Transferring after a flight from London, I see a water bottle refill fountain, which I use. We're running late, so I head straight to the gate...and then have to immediately dispose of my newly filled 2L water bottle. I've never known another airport to have this security setup, and as a massive transit hub, I really can't make sense of why they chose to put it at that point - but t…

I think the reason is, like you said, it is a transit hub. So passenger flying out of Singapore can mix with people in transit. Therefore, putting the scanner before boarding prevent a possible terrorist attack when someone smuggle in explosive or what not from Singapore or from transit flight.

Kinda like needing to enter your password again to change your account settings if you're already logged in. (I don't necessarily think all these rules are good and just, but if they were, it would make sense to have some redundancy.)
Post reply on HN