New gadget ban on some US international flights

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › New gadget ban on some US international flights

1 | 2

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1746223 23-Mar-2017 07:16

Reading about this yesterday the basis seems to be chatter that terrorists were developing a bomb that could be contained within a battery and masked from traditional screening.

The logic behind such a ban would be that such a device had to be manually triggered, but I'm pretty sure plane bombers mastered pressure switches in the '80s when lots of planes blew up prior to any baggage screening occuring.

The large flaw with banning devices on only a few airlines is that it then increases the risk for everybody else in much the same way only having a small % of the population vaccinated doesn't make the world safe for everybody. With the huge debates in the US over ME3 carriers in recent years it does seem a little coincidental.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1746225 23-Mar-2017 07:22

Dingbatt: Aircraft holds are pressurised. What the would-be bomber can't control is the proximity of any device to the skin of the aircraft if the it is in a cargo hold. Not such an expert after all.

I'd say the biggest factor would be that luggage is contained in (relatively) explosion-resistant containers.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1746227 23-Mar-2017 07:26

Fred99:

It seems to have started with this:

According to news reports, the ban applies to flights to and from 8 countries, but there's no official announcement - so no list of countries affected.

Saudi airlines have confirmed the ban applies to them. Presumably this is in response to some known specific threat. I guess a concern is TATP can't be picked up by airport scanners, and the bad guys seem to be getting better at making and using it. But if concerns about quality of screening/security at those foreign airports is the issue, that doesn't really explain why outbound flights from the US are also affected.

Could be rather upsetting if you had to surrender your new camera or ipad at check-in - possibly never to be seen again.

I hope it doesn't spread - increase to cover more destinations / departure points.

So, this will stop an iPad bomb going off in the cabin, it will go off in the hold instead. Yep, great.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1746243 23-Mar-2017 08:09

frankv:
Dingbatt: Aircraft holds are pressurised. What the would-be bomber can't control is the proximity of any device to the skin of the aircraft if the it is in a cargo hold. Not such an expert after all.

I'd say the biggest factor would be that luggage is contained in (relatively) explosion-resistant containers.

The ULDs (Unit Load Devices) that are used to carry baggage are built to be lightweight and transportable and as such provide little resistance to explosive force. In fact many have fabric hatches. While trials were done on explosive resistant ULDs they have not been adopted, probably due to cost (unless you are El Al). More resistance from luggage full of spare knickers in reality.
My biggest concern, as alluded to earlier, is the inaccessible batteries tucked away in the hold.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1746264 23-Mar-2017 09:40

jonherries: Saw the conversation with the "expert" on tv this morning, he appeared to be knowledgeable but not very media savvy.

Perhaps neither if he thinks airliner baggage compartments are unpressurised.

So much conjecture about why. So there's supposed to be a "specific threat" - and there's a policy change. What's the big secret?

I'm pretty sure that if for example there's been some intercept of intelligence where the bad guys have been talking about how to sneak a bomb into an iPad or laptop, they'd realise - by reading the newspaper - that their cover has been blown.

If there was in fact some verified credible new way to hide a bomb, then surely telling everybody involved in air security about the specific nature of the threat and what to look for would be reasonable. We know why people had to take shoes off for checks, not carry liquids etc.

Jihadists might possibly prefer to target US or European airlines serving US or UK destinations, not specifically the airlines affected by this "ban". If they want to target those airlines, then they don't need to be flights to the UK or USA.

Edit - the UK ban appears to include BA, Easyjet etc, if flying from Tunisia, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia.

It does have the smell of rat about it - commercially motivated rat.

1 | 2