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

801–810 of 839 posts

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#801

Post by sothatsit »

ch4s3 wrote: post #531
sothatsit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be able to do full 3d scans of their bodies, and then doctors should be able to tell them what they should ignore. If they spot something abnormal they could suggest coming back 6 months or a year later to check if it has changed, just like mole scans. The problems that you suggest only come from people overreacting to test results. We can do better.

You can now in the US it’s just expensive, and of little medical value:

Yep, it is working as intended then. My point was more that “preventative MRIs cause more problems than they solve” is an annoying statement because it does not have to be true if you get good medical advice. But saying “preventative MRIs are not worth the cost” is quite reasonable.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#802

Post by harry8 »

jen20 wrote: post #398
harry8 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Scoot (Budget Singapore Air) they let you bring your external phone batteries on the plane but do NOT let you use them. You have to rent one of theirs. Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety. All of this fake, useless theatre undermines real security and makes us less safe while picking our pockets. Fluids to bring down a plane?…

> Skyphone installation by the airlines led to "flight mode" because the horror of not paying is far more important than safety. By the time “airplane mode” became common on mobile phones, the phones installed in airplane seats were already decommissioned in most cases.

The authorities can't admit they lied. Admit there was never any evidence that phones could interfere with anything on a plane other than the well being those around you. They can't admit they banned mobile phone usage but not skyphones because of special interest pressure.

They can't do this because it would destroy their credibility with the ignorant as much as it has with the informed, that would get a critical mass. So yeah we have "flight mode" and every single flight someone breaks it. It isn't remotely enforceable so it is just as well that connecting to cellular is harmless. (Planes also have expensive wifi instead of expensive skyphones now, so the financial incentive remains.)

Airplane mode was a figleaf to counter "your phone must be switched off" which was the old-school airplane mode enforcement.

Undermining security for little bits of money for special interest. The naked corruption of purpose could make you angry if you let it.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#803

Post by pseudohadamard »

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…

The motivation was that we've run out of other things to scaremonger about so we'll come up with what Bruce Schneier calls movie-plot threats and go with those instead. The few explosives that are liquid are also incredibly impractical to work with in most cases except for perhaps perchloric acid which is nitrogen-free so won't be detected but then persuading that to detonate from a seat in economy class is going to be quite a feat.

The country I'm in abolished the liquids nonsense for domestic flights (which they can do because it's domestic travel) around a decade ago with the reasoning that it wasn't serving any purpose.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#804

Post by rudhdb773b »

ekianjo wrote: post #426
rudhdb773b wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

But does a battery fire on a plane pose a much more significant risk than anywhere else one carries a battery in his daily life?

At least on a plane, you have well-trained staff and fire extinguishers readily available.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#805

Post by JasonADrury »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #652
JasonADrury wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I routinely conceal large bottles of liquids on my person while going through airport security. I've probably gone through airport security in various places with a 1.5L bottle of water more than a hundred times now. Haven't been caught once, although of course the US-style scanners could presumably defeat this. Same with hot sauces, perfume and the occasional bottles of wine. I really don't like to travel with a che…

Where do you put the water bottle?

Pockets. The joggers I usually fly in can easily hide a 2L bottle.

https://media-assets.grailed.com/prd/listing/temp/94e905ee96...

https://preview.redd.it/h6o0yrb4k5jf1.jpg?width=810&format=p...

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#806

Post by eru »

bruce511 wrote: post #726
eru wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now? Short of the hijackers getting guns on the plane, passengers will absolutely fight back. I'm not even sure guns would hold some wannabe heroes back.

Guns on planes aren't terribly effective. Firstly cause puncturing the hull will end badly. But also because there's a lot of people in a very confined space. A shooter has no space to maneuver and threats on all sides. It's not even heros-required. Most passengers know the math. Hijacking means certain death anyway, so you may as well roll the dice.

> Firstly cause puncturing the hull will end badly.

What makes you think so?

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#807

Post by lmm »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #156
lmm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 has well publicised cases (and is not unusual in this) Share with us your best source for this.

https://archive.md/xInVy was the particular example I was mainly thinking of. Discussed here at the time with many more anecdotes in the comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11876453

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#808

Post by sfn42 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #658
sfn42 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you're in a commercial plane, the driver is acting immaculately, with a margin of error so small you'd never be able to notice any problems. So you'll never need to ask the driver to calm down or let you off. (But it's worth noting that all the control in the world won't keep you safe in a car. You can have/be an inhumanly perfect driver and it's still pretty dangerous to be on the roads.) And then every other com…

> The bouncing on tarmac is safe.

It's not long ago that I saw a video of a plane landing in Canada, the right landing gear collapsed and the whole plane rolled around crushing the wings and creating a huge ball of fire. Miraculously everyone survived but passengers described being showered in jet fuel while a huge fireball was going off outside so they clearly weren't far off getting roasted.

It obviously isn't safe. It's a situation where if anything goes wrong, there is a very high chance that everyone involved goes up in flames. Now we all know it usually goes well but saying it's safe is a stretch in my book.

Shit happens all the time in aviation. Planes are told to land on a runway where another plane is taking off. Plane manufacturers install buggy new systems without informing pilots causing hundreds of fatalities. Planes collide in mid air. Birds fly into the engine.

And yes, pilots make mistakes. They are absolutely not acting immaculately all the time. They're human, we all make mistakes. Some, more than others. And some times things go wrong no matter how perfectly the pilot flies.

I never said I feel safe in a car at all times. I just said I feel more in control. But I often feel unsafe in cars too, particularly when I'm a passenger. A lot of drivers drive unsafely by my judgement - they drive too fast for the conditions, too close to other cars, they're looking at passengers, phones, the view, or messing with car settings instead of looking at the road. They get angry for no reason and drive more aggressively. They expect everyone else to drive perfectly and if anyone doesn't do what they expect they have close calls and blame the other driver rather than realizing they should simply have given them more space.

Basically, most people drive in such a way that if anything goes too wrong or goes wrong at the wrong time, they will be helpless to do anything about it. I try to drive in such a way that when things go really wrong I can still compensate for other people's mistakes. Of course it's impossible to be 100% safe but I am quite confident that I'm very significantly safer than most drivers.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#809

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

lmm wrote: post #807
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Heathrow has well publicised cases (and is not unusual in this) Share with us your best source for this.

https://archive.md/xInVy was the particular example I was mainly thinking of. Discussed here at the time with many more anecdotes in the comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11876453

As suspected, your claim is grossly exaggerated. You have one blog post from a decade ago (which I remember reading at the time since I met the author at a conference) which is about being denied entry as the grounds for travel were misdeclared, and not about oppressive security theatre at the passenger screening area.

Re: Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

#810

Post by kleiba »

empath75 wrote: post #560
kleiba wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report.

> This is true. In France, about two thirds out of the people dying in a car accident are the actual drivers responsible for the accident, according to the 2024 Road Safety Report. --- This is because a large number of accidents don't involve another car.

Your point?
Post reply on HN