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

421–430 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#421

Post by graemep »

sfn42 wrote: post #343
Dylan16807 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"largely" is true, but because planes are more than 3x safer people are still being wrong when they fear plane travel. People try to treat "largely" as "fully" and that fails.

It's not about statistics. It's about control and knowledge. I know if a car I'm in is driving safely. I can ask the driver to calm down or let me off. In a plane I have nothing. I'm just sitting in a tin can, no idea whether the pilot is flying responsibly or not. No idea whether the landing is routine as hell or kinda sketch. Even if i could talk to the pilot the only thing we can do is land. And have you thought a…

> I know if a car I'm in is driving safely. I can ask the driver to calm down or let me off.

Do you know that all the other cars on the road that might hit yours are being driven safely?

How do you feel about busses and trains?

> And have you thought about airplane landing? It's insane. This big clunky metal bird full of literal jet fuel coming in at like 400kmh or whatever, bouncing around on the tarmac as it's desperately trying to regain control and slow down.

A car is a metal box full of fuel kept under control by four rubber balloons.

At least a plane is heavily monitored for safety, checked before every flight, and controlled by highly trained professionals.

> Honestly I don't see how a rational person could not be stressed out in that situation.

A rational person would not be worried. The fear is very much an irrational reaction and a psychological problem that a few people have. Most of us will happily go to sleep on a long flight and our biggest fear is boredom.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#422

Post by missingdays »

mlrtime wrote: post #392
littlecranky67 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has a very sad and weak airport security story. The security personal are hired and paid by the state (Land), and thus the state plans their capacity and workflow. The airport owner (i.e. FRAport) has no say in their internal work organization, as it is basically contracted out policework. For whatever reason, most german Airports I regularly use, use the same machine and broken workflow: There is only a limi…

>so everybody can get undressed Wait what? What are you removing? Flying in the US this week I removed nothing but a winter coat. Everything went on as normal, nothing out of bags, jut coat off.

I usually have to remove my jacket, and always the belt

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#423

Post by dbbk »

scq wrote: post #77
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…

From my understanding, the new CT machines are able to characterise material composition using dual-energy X-ray, and this is how they were able to relax the rules.

Yes. The first step was upgrading to the new machines, now the size limits can be relaxed.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#424

Post by jalapenos »

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…

I assume the logic was:

1) People demand the government be accountable for their failing to protect them

2) Government responds by increased giving the appearance of protecting them, since that creates more lowest-common-denominator sense of feeling safe than the government actually protecting them does; votes protected

3) Complaints of "security theatre" don't alter the above - they just have to wait until people have forgotten their fear while very slowly, bit by bit, without it being noticed, stop doing the nonsense

Or put simply: "terrorists win"

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#425

Post by 0x3f »

teiferer wrote: post #340
wakawaka28 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Do you think they find a white guy flying out of China to be a likely terrorist? What does skin color have to do with this? And yes, oppressed groups in China, like the Uyghurs, have support in the west. Among white people. Maybe the winning strategy is comprehensive mass surveillance which flags you in a database long before even showing up at the airport and then the security theater just provides a suitable pret…

> What does skin color have to do with this?

It affects their perception of how risky you are, obviously. Accurate or not.

In fact, security tech in China will openly classify you by race/ethnicity.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#426

Post by ekianjo »

rudhdb773b wrote: post #160
ekianjo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Declarations are meaningless. This will not prevent fires ot occur.

Are battery fires on planes a common problem? I haven't heard of many, at least with any significant consequences. And what would you suggest be done to reduce the risk? Asking passengers to travel without phones or laptops isn't realistic.

> common problem

https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2025/08/26...

It's statistics at the end of the day. If you have 300 people carrying several batteries in the body of the airplane, and any of them has enough energy to cause an immediate fire, you are playing with odds.

> What we should do

Completely banning portable batteries (chargers) would be a start. You cut the risk by a lot already because they are rampant.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#427

Post by Reefersleep »

SapporoChris wrote: post #351
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once at a security checkpoint to a museum in Shanghai, they saw my water bottle, and then told me to take it out and drink from it.

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"

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#428

Post by 0x3f »

jeffwass wrote: post #293
michaelt wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even in your own car dropping off your friends or family at a UK airport (at least the London ones) requires paying a £6 fee now. Just to get to the dropoff area, even for 30 seconds as you say. But hey, at least the luggage carts are free…

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.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#429

Post by swiftcoder »

mlrtime wrote: post #388
dataengineer56 wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience many of them do feel like they're doing something important, and some seem principally motivated to do the job by the promise of being able to bully travellers.

>do feel like they're doing something important First I agree TSA is mostly theater... however if you HAD to have it, you want the people to work like this. I might be old-school but I think everyone should have pride and responsibility in their work. Even if from the outside it is meaningless. 100% no reason to be a bully, that is not pride/responsibility. Every job has ass assholes.

> Every job has ass assholes.

Yeah, but jobs that are police-adjacent have them at a very high rate. Almost like they select for it or something...

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#430

Post by pushedx »

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…

One theory that I've had for a while with regards to the no liquid policy is that it was somehow introduced by the food vendors on the other side of security, who want you to buy a drink and some food after you pass through.
Post reply on HN