If you're annoyed about rules on liquids in air travel

Submitted by David on Tue, 2008-02-12 14:44

Here's the US Transportation Security Administration itself had to say about the limitations on liquids carried onto planes as a result of the threat of binary explosives:

The preparation of these bombs is very much more complex than tossing together several bottles-worth of formula and lighting it up. In fact, in recent tests, a National Lab was asked to formulate a test mixture and it took several tries using the best equipment and best scientists for it to even ignite. That was with a bomb prepared in advance in a lab setting. A less skilled person attempting to put it together inside a secure area or a plane is not a good bet. You have to have significant uninterrupted time with space and other requirements that are not easily available in a secured area of an airport.

So, in other words, even if a terrorist could get materials past a security point and try to mix them, even in ideal conditions, they're unlikely to produce an explosion.

As usual, things seem to be more about the appearance of security rather than security itself.

(HT: Slashdot)

Comments

dmodderman

Fri, 2008-02-15 15:16

The check for fluids may seem unreasonable, but it is not necessarily irrational. There are cases where terrorists have assembled bombs on planes using items appearing to be of normal everday use. I saw a documentary on Discovery about a bomber (while flying, which is not a good idea) using a 500mL bottle of contact lens solution containing glycerin, a 9 volt batter hidden in a compartment in the heel of his shoe (metal detector didn't measure that low), and a timer made from a modified wrist watch (which he wore as a wristwatch). He then simply went into the aircraft washroom while flying, took the battery out of his shoe, took his watch off and contact lens solution bottle, assembled it in the washroom and hid it under his seat with the life preserver. The timer went off a few hours later when the bomber was off the plane. The person sitting above the bomb died when it went off and many were seriously injured, the planes' auto navigation controls were disabled, though the pilots were able to land the plane though some controls were not working. The bomber had intended the bomb to be above the fuel tank but missed the location by two rows. If it was above the fuel tank, it is likely it would have taken the plane down with no survivors.

I'm sure the risk of someone pulling this off is very small compared to other risks of just flying in general. But those flying on the plane with attempted bombing may have felt otherwise!

David

Fri, 2008-02-15 17:51

The incident that you mentioned can be found (as part of a larger plot) on page 69 (using the PDF page numbers) of this site.

It also notes that the bombers were caught in that circumstance due to an instability of their explosives, and that the FAA brought in "sniffer" machines to examine for traces of explosives.