Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU's "no-liquid Policy" - Terrorists' Victory?  
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5597 posts, RR: 19
Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1838 times:

Yesterday's wonderful 80 minutes spent in a line waiting for security clearance at LGW's South Terminal with non-existent airconditioning allowed me plenty of time to think about these measures that we brought upon ourselves.
Wasn't introduction of the recent "no liquids/gels policy" an overkill measure and in the end a moral victory for terrorists?
Is there still a need for Muslim fanatics flying aircraft into skyscrapers or igniting their explosive shoes in midair? We seem to manage making our lives miserable and terrorize ourselves pretty well.
BTW, what is the impact of these measures on revenues for airside "duty-free" shops? With people being happy to barely make it to their gate on time it seems to me that they are not too keen to be shopping.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2828 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

I must say I find the toothpaste Directive a terrible nuisance. I hope it will be lifted soon. But of course if it is lifted and some terrorist does blow up a plane with liquids, we'll regret it forever. So whoever may have to take the decision to lift it will have a field day explaining why the risk suddenly ended. I see it as a knee-jerk reaction from the EC with a very limited effect on safety.

The problem with security measures is how far do you go? Put an anaesthetic in the cabin air so the pax remain unconscious during flight? Abolish aviation alltogether? Those would be very effective measures and at the same time totally impossible. At some point you go too far, and in my opinion the line has already been crossed. No, confiscating someone's 33cc coke can is not the same as abolishing aviation, but it does mean more and more inconvenience (besides the security checks, who are acceptable in my opinion) without any proven safety benefit.

Let's face it: life has risks, and that's not ever going to change.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1796 times:

I have to agree with you. Our governments responses have been the terrorists' victories.

User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2822 posts, RR: 42
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1775 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Thread starter):
Yesterday's wonderful 80 minutes spent in a line waiting for security clearance at LGW's South Terminal with non-existent airconditioning allowed me plenty of time to think about these measures that we brought upon ourselves.
Wasn't introduction of the recent "no liquids/gels policy" an overkill measure and in the end a moral victory for terrorists?

I really hate it whenever this this question pops because it betrays exactly how shallow our notion of victory is (absolutely nothing should get in the way of our convince) and how mis-understood Al Qaeda and the rest of the terror factions are. Their purpose is not to make our government more annoying, it's to kill Jews, Christians, reclaim spain, push Isreal into the sea, and impose a theocracy on the rest of the world.

Pure and simple. You might as well say that the Nazi's won world war II because everyone had to ration metal. A little inconvenience to you flying does not necessitate a victory for Islamic.


User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

Many countries have a ban on liquids now! Is this list correct?http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/ACI_Priorities/Security/ICAO_TRACKER_FILE.pdf
For me it´s very strange that you are not allowed to bring liquids on flights to Australia but you are to the EU not sure about the UK.

Sukhoi


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1689 times:

outside the boarders of Iraq, you are more likely to die from taking a shower/bath than you are to be killed by terrorism. Given that our responses to the threat to aviation is both over blown, AND under-effective.

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Although it's annoying, I think most frequent travellers are used to it now. After quite a few trips (mostly within Europe) since the restrictions were imposed, it doesn't seem to be causing many additional delays at the security check. Most people seem to have their little plastic bag with their toiletries ready to put in the basket to go through the X-ray machine.

The inconsistent policies depending on the country of origin seem to be the major problem as passengers who don't take the time to inform themselves of all the restrictions may find that certain items permitted in their carry-on at their point of origin (especially when it's outside Europe or North America) are not permitted when they reach the security check at their connecting point.


User currently offlineSabena332 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Thread starter):
Wasn't introduction of the recent "no liquids/gels policy" an overkill measure and in the end a moral victory for terrorists?

It was, definitely!

This rule is so utterly ridiculous that I can only laugh about these EU bureaucrat retards! I really avoid to fly nowadays because of such a shit, it is annoying and achieves absolutely nothing!

Patrick


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1604 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 5):
Given that our responses to the threat to aviation is both over blown, AND under-effective.

How do you know that? The ban on liquids and gels was based on intelligence that I doubt that anyone on this board is privy to. If terrorists had used liquids to destroy aircraft it would look like a small trifle indeed to restrict your toothpaste and shampoo carry on quantities. Perhaps it has been a very effective response inasmuch as the risks of that method of terrorism being employed has been at least reduced.

Quoting Sabena332 (Reply 7):
Quoting L410Turbolet (Thread starter):
Wasn't introduction of the recent "no liquids/gels policy" an overkill measure and in the end a moral victory for terrorists?

It was, definitely!

This rule is so utterly ridiculous that I can only laugh about these EU bureaucrat retards! I really avoid to fly nowadays because of such a shit, it is annoying and achieves absolutely nothing!

Again, I disagree, because I don't think you or anyone else on the board has access to all the information that led to this particular restriction. If you avoid flying because you need to buy replacement shaving cream and toothpaste at your destination, I suspect that you didn't really have an especially compelling case for flying in the first place.

I don't know if or when these bans will be rescinded, but if there is credible evidence that these were areas ripe for exploitation by terrorists, I think that this trifling inconvenience is appropriate in view of the potential negative outcomes of not enforcing the restrictions.


User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4199 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Quoting BuyantUkhaa (Reply 1):
it will have a field day explaining why the risk suddenly ended. I see it as a knee-jerk reaction from the EC with a very limited effect on safety.

The problem with security measures is how far do you go? Put an anaesthetic in the cabin air so the pax remain unconscious during flight? Abolish aviation alltogether? Those would be very effective measures and at the same time totally impossible. At some point you go too far, and in my opinion the line has already been crossed. No, confiscating someone's 33cc coke can is not the same as abolishing aviation, but it does mean more and more inconvenience (besides the security checks, who are acceptable in my opinion) without any proven safety benefit.

Let's face it: life has risks, and that's not ever going to change.

I see several people on here that are quick to point out how much they dislike the current safety measures. Well, what do you propose? Should we all just be allowed to board the plane with whatever the hell we like in our bags? Of course not, that would be silly. Considering the threat against a bomb being brought on board using several different components became a reality, I, for one, think that was a logical step. The way I see it, the only way al-qaeda would notch a victory would be if they killed more people....

I guess that people who lived near NYC on 9/11/01 and were directly affected by the events of that day have a different opinion than others when it comes to airline security. I'd rather be safe than sorry, even if that means some inconvenience.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12878 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Don't forget that terrorists considered the use of liquids to make a chemical based bomb or a chemical that could be disbursed to disable the pax and crew well before the last years threat. While the recent restrictions on liquids are not liked at all by the majority of travelers due to the inconvenience and related issues, let's face the reality that security 'experts' had to find a quick and hopefully effective fix for a potential security problem that became more probable last year. We don't have the the will, don't want the inconvenience or invasion of privacy of nor can we afford throughout the airline passanger industry to have 'El Al' levels of security, especially their interrigation of passangers. Some would simplisticly say that only 'Arabs' or people from predominently islamic countries or with 'Islamic' names are the only ones that need to be restricted and subject to additional scrutanty - problem is that it will backfire, and you ignore the Richard Reid types. Therefore, the liquids restricions seem to be a reasonable balance against a potential risk without being too invasive or causing other problems.
As to the liquids restrictions as a victory for the terrorists, to me it was a setback for them. It just reduced a potentially easy way to do a terror act on an aircraft.


User currently offlineSiromega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1535 times:

I'm way more likely to be killed by a drunk driver on my way to the airport than I am being killed by a terrorist event while flying, liquids or not. I await the day when I fly naked because they've figured out how to make explosive clothing.

User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2752 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Quoting Siromega (Reply 11):
I'm way more likely to be killed by a drunk driver on my way to the airport than I am being killed by a terrorist event while flying, liquids or not.

So what? You're more likely to die of a heart attack than from either drunk drivers or terrorists. Your argument is fallacious.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 8):
How do you know that? The ban on liquids and gels was based on intelligence that I doubt that anyone on this board is privy to. If terrorists had used liquids to destroy aircraft it would look like a small trifle indeed to restrict your toothpaste and shampoo carry on quantities.

Probably the most accurate summary thusfar. And this is no victory: as has been elsewhere said, the goal of terrorism as is being battled in this instance isn't to "terrorize" per se, but to kill. Since that has, as far as anyone here is aware, been prevented; then it is certainly no victory for those who would subscribe to such measures.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 8):
If you avoid flying because you need to buy replacement shaving cream and toothpaste at your destination, I suspect that you didn't really have an especially compelling case for flying in the first place.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineKalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

The key problem is that there is no other meaningful way to respond to the threat - just keep adding prohibited articles to the laundry list. It's fairly useless, since those bad guys turn out to be quite creative. However, doing nothing will look very strange for taxpayers.
Well, maybe there is a better way to stop those guys, but I still have to find out what else can be /is being done. Let's hope something more meaningful is being crafted behind locked doors - or maybe something is already done.

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 8):
The ban on liquids and gels was based on intelligence that I doubt that anyone on this board is privy to.

Or if there was anything other than paranoia behind the ban. you will never know.


User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1504 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Thread starter):
what is the impact of these measures on revenues for airside "duty-free" shops?

I was wondering the same thing, especially given that LHR has that huge duty-free just beyond the security checkpoint.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 5):
Given that our responses to the threat to aviation is both over blown, AND under-effective.

Agreed. As soon as Western-allied countries start adapting to the models of the Swiss and the Israelis, we will not have to be concerned with efficiency. But it might be too late by the time the higher-ups figure that out  sarcastic .

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 8):
I don't know if or when these bans will be rescinded

They'll be rescinded sooner than the governments of the UK and US figure out how to most effectively counter terrorism in commercial avaition  twocents .

-R


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1432 times:

Those who've written of the goals of terrorists seem to be overlooking the incessant short-term goal of every terrorist organization: fund-raising. How do terrorist organizations raise money? Exactly the same way every non-profit organization raises money. They tell their supporter of their recent concrete accomplishments A, B, and C and promise with their continued generous support they will be able to further accomplish X, Y, and Z in the future. The only difference is that X, Y, and Z are necessarily vague in the case of terrorism like "make the streets run red with blood" or some such. So, the question is: Have terrorist organizations been citing the ban on liquids as part of their fund-raising pitch?

User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

I'd have faith in the security and the 3-ounce rule if it wasn't for the following fact:

If, let's say, a certain explosive that looks just like water, requires four ounces for detonation...what is to prevent a pair of determined terrorists from joining up inside the cabin, putting their legal two ounces together and producing the dreaded four ounces?

The logic behind it does not match.

And as far as security goes, you can be killed by a nutcase anytime, anywhere, by anyone ranging from a deranged nutcase off his medication to a jihadi terrorist bent on entering heaven and awaiting his 72 virgins. There's no magic pill, there's no magic solution. If not on an airplane, then maybe a college campus. Lunatics are everywhere.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1339 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 12):

So what? You're more likely to die of a heart attack than from either drunk drivers or terrorists.

A heart attack is your own choice (some genetics + mostly lifestyle choices).

Getting killed by a drunk driver, much like being killed in a terrorist event, is something you have little or no control over.

Way different. I can work to prevent a heart attack by eating healthy, exercise and seeing my doctor for checkups every year. Otherwise, its just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Plus, last I checked way more people die in drunk driving deaths than do terrorist events in the US, so I'd rather we focus our energies on that instead of picking through my bag at the airport and limited the number of liquids I can carry on.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1283 times:

The liquid ban thing isn't a victory for the terrorists. The same things were said when metal detectors became the norm, and xray screening and other security procedures.

It could only be counted as such if they can crow about it to the world. Wow...what a great recruiting slogan this would be,

"The jihadist al-qaida revolutionary army for the moral cleansing of the world, (Kabul local #254, (Go Lemmings!)), declare victory over the infidel hordes by depriving them of their toothpaste and mouthwash, (which they can replace at a discount at duty free in Islamabad. Tell them Ahmed sent you). Now, they truly stink like the dogs they are. God be praised".

Life is full of compromises. I travel hundreds of thousands of miles a year. I know it's a huge pain. These policies have spread over the globe so everyone is effected. Big deal. The biggest problems are not the policies but the idiots who don't tell people about it ahead of time so travellers can prepare at home, (maybe when they buy a ticket), and the idiots who can't figure out the directions.


I can't think of 100ml of anything which I really, really need to take with me.



What the...?
User currently offlineStrathpeffer From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1261 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 17):
If, let's say, a certain explosive that looks just like water, requires four ounces for detonation...what is to prevent a pair of determined terrorists from joining up inside the cabin, putting their legal two ounces together and producing the dreaded four ounces?

I think that is why the size of the container is restricted and not the amount of liquid. A 500ml bottle, even if it had less than 100ml in it, is forbidden. It would allow such a 'joining up' to take place. A 100ml bottle is allowed because it wouldn't.

I agree though, that it doesn't seem terribly difficult to get round this.

Now I am used to it I barely notice the UK's 100ml rule though I did loose a couple of aerosols early on. Shaving foam is still the only annnoyance - nobody makes it in small containers and transferring it from a big bottle to a little one is as easy as putting toothpaste back in the tube. I should probably return to old fashioned solid shaving soap and a brush...

... what is far more irritating is the requirement, at BAA Airports only it seems, to remove my laptop and all its accessories from the bag and present it for separate x-ray. This really slows the whole show down - almost everyone seems to travel with a laptop these days.

PJ



Another Technical Problem?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1248 times:

Quoting Strathpeffer (Reply 20):
I think that is why the size of the container is restricted and not the amount of liquid. A 500ml bottle, even if it had less than 100ml in it, is forbidden. It would allow such a 'joining up' to take place. A 100ml bottle is allowed because it wouldn't.

They have you put your stuff in a clear plastic bag. I'm fairly sure that this is ah... a container... that ah... could be used to combine liquids.

Yes, they REQUIRE you to have a container of fairly large capacity.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

Quoting Strathpeffer (Reply 20):
Now I am used to it I barely notice the UK's 100ml rule though I did loose a couple of aerosols early on. Shaving foam is still the only annnoyance - nobody makes it in small containers....

Actually, someone does. The shaving foam cans I use are 0.5oz (by weight) and the container measures 23mm in diameter by 93mm in length with the cap on, so it is clearly less than 100ml. SQ give them away free in their F lounges and in the amenity drawer of the lavs in the F cabins. One can lasts me 8-10 shaves. Another alternative is that shaving gel can be found in small plastic tubes.


User currently offlineAerorobNZ From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6897 posts, RR: 13
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Thread starter):
Wasn't introduction of the recent "no liquids/gels policy" an overkill measure and in the end a moral victory for terrorists?

No. It is no issue whatsoever, and I see it as a positive because I have noticed that the hand luggage size/weight isn't as much of an issue as it was before the measures were implemented because people are no longer putting large vessels of liquid/gels in their handluggage. I don't even take any liquids on the plane with me, and you can buy anything you need during the flight after the screening point if you aren't transiting later. I actually hope that further to the restrictions they start to restrict the physical size of hand carry a bit more.


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5572 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

One thing about all this puzzles me. If it is so easy to make explosives, how come the practice isn't more widespread? I would have thought them quite complex to make, and that it would take more than half an hour in an airplane toilet, without a heat source or other laboratory devices; the sort of things which would be practically impossible to get through airport security anyway.

And surely, even if someone did smuggle all the required equipment on board, the amout of time spent in the toilet, plus the stink it would probably make, would make the exercise fairly obvious.

Mabye someone with a chemistry background could help here.


25 Rammstein : Absolutely yes. The directive is completely useless.
26 Banco : I don't really see it as that big an inconvenience. Either put it in your checked luggage for buy it the other side or at the destination where you're
27 WithaK : Brilliantly said. It isn't the terrorists goal to be a pain in the rear end by not letting us take liquids onto our flight. I doubt that the planners
28 BHXFAOTIPYYC : ... but not if the bottle is empty. I had an empty water bottle in my hand baggage and hadn't binned it - no problem at security at all. In this thre
29 GDB : I'll tell what would have been a terrorists victory, if last year they had succeeded where they had failed in the Philippines in 1996. And one, or sev
30 Findingnema : Some parts of the new security restrictions I'm very much in favour for, such as restricting passengers to one piece of carry on luggage, which should
31 Cedarjet : OK. 1. it would take a lot of liquids and a couple of chemists to reconstitute explosives on board. 2. meanwhile, we are able to take explosives onto
32 Cedarjet : Sorry, overlooked the premise of the thread. Yes, of course it's a victory for the terrorists (whoever they are). On the bad side, we're inconvenience
33 Banco : On board? You can do it in the departure lounge. That's why arriving and departing passengers aren't allowed to mix, at least not in security conscio
34 YOWza : This no-liquid policy is a gold rush for Duty Free stores inthe EU. Just go to LHR T3 any day of the week and you will see hoardes of transit PAX bein
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"What Terrorists Want" posted Fri Aug 25 2006 21:58:35 by Tbar220
Who Lyric Question: "I've Known No War" posted Sun Jan 16 2005 23:36:12 by Logan22L
Tiger Finds "No Privacy" On Honeymoon posted Fri Oct 15 2004 05:37:57 by L-188
"..there Is No Failsafe..." = Admiting Failure? posted Fri Oct 15 2004 00:02:45 by Lehpron
Senator Kennedy On The "No-Fly" List posted Fri Aug 20 2004 13:16:26 by NoUFO
Ashcroft Has "No Apologies" For 762 Detainees posted Fri Jun 13 2003 15:03:56 by B747-437B
Judge To Cheney: "You Have No Case" posted Fri Apr 18 2003 15:01:44 by Heavymetal
You Know You've Chosen A "No-Frills" Airline When: posted Tue Mar 5 2002 18:23:43 by AMSMAN
"Just Good Ol' Boys, Never Meaning No Harm.." posted Fri Jan 18 2002 07:40:00 by PanAm747
"Constitutional Scholar" O'Donnell On 2d Amendment posted Wed Oct 4 2006 12:07:45 by AerospaceFan