Ban Of Liquids On Flights

[Shrubbery]

This is from today's Bangkok Post:

Liquid ban on flights from June 1

"From June 1, air passengers flying out of Thailand will be prohibited from carrying liquids, with the exception of baby milk and medications, exceeding 100 millilitres on board their planes. According to Thai Airways International president Apinan Sumanaseni, the Aviation Department is imposing the ban in line with the directive of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The ban covers all kinds of containers, including water, beverage, cream, lotion, oil, perfume, hair gel, spray, bath gel, foam, toothpaste and deodorant.

Containers of lesser capacities are allowed but must be placed in transparent and re-sealable plastic bags.

Exempted from the ban are milk and liquid foods for infants and liquid medicines with proper prescriptions.

Airports of Thailand board member Chirmsak Pinthong said passengers who buy liquid products from airport duty-free shops would be issued special seals and certificates to be introduced soon".

[hill16]

Hi,

This has been in place at least since 23 April (when I last flew from BKK) for flights to Australia.

Practically, it means allowing yourself some leeway at the departure gate because everybody has to queue up and allow airport authorities to go through your hand luggage where they then have to put all such containers in the re-sealable bag.

I say bag (singular) because when I travelled it was only 1 re-sealable bag per person and these bags are about 20 x 16cm in size so not that big.

I had my tootpaste confiscated but I found the public searching of my toiletries to be annoying. They also took my nice cold bottle of water which got me more annoyed. Worst of all they told me I could not bring my duty free purchased bottle of Jameson on board (thankfully I didn't have to purchase any perfumes for anybody). Fortunately, I had sufficient time to go back through x-ray security and get a refund. I did have to queue up again and be searched a second time.

Two things that may happen as a result of this new directive is that airport duty free will take a hit where it hurts and some people may get dehydrated or at least uncomfortable after having to surrender their bottled water.

Everybody will have an opinion on whether this is a good or bad thing. I know what mine is...

[Gumballl]

Airports of Thailand board member Chirmsak Pinthong said passengers who buy liquid products from airport duty-free shops would be issued special seals and certificates to be introduced soon".

This sums it up. Nothing new with the regulations, except now the airport shops will be able to do more business.

[Shrubbery]

I flew BKK-BWN with Thai 12th April and had no inspection of fluids. Even though I had deodorant and contact lense solution which I had purchased in town.

[A_Traveller]

Guess the next step will be banning all marker pens and the like {see recent episode of 24}.

The duty free at source has been in place for some while, with different interpretations leading to confusion. If, for example, you are boarding a flight in BKK going Europe and then to the US, it is entirely possible your 'sealed and documentated' duty free may be confiscated at the way point.

Duty free should now be bought at the last airport before destination.

Regards

PS Re 24 point, isn't this where most governments get their ideas from about security Oh for The Man from UNCLE

[Jimjim]

This has been the norm in Britain and the U.S. for some time now.

[billp]

Duty free should now be bought at the last airport before destination.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work if you're flying into the EU and heading for another EU country. Or heading into any hub airport with a domestic flight in your destination county for that matter.

[TRIPxCORE]

This thing with banning liquids on airplanes is completely ridiculous. On my most recent flight out of the U.S., I had a very small bottle of hairspray, half a bottle of lotion and a new tube of toothpaste that they took and threw away right in front of me. I'm sorry but toothpaste isn't going to harm the airplane or anyone in it. As a matter of fact, the whole security thing at all airports is a sham. I work for a major U.S. airline at a major U.S. international airport. If a terrorist really wanted to do some harm, there are so many easy ways to do so that have nothing at all to do with security checkpoints. It's just a joke and it pisses me off.

[A_Traveller]

Duty free should now be bought at the last airport before destination.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work if you're flying into the EU and heading for another EU country. Or heading into any hub airport with a domestic flight in your destination county for that matter.

I'm a direct flier so forgive me if I'm in error, but I was under the impression that if you were trans-connecting within the EU Duty Free was still available, and that some airports were operating an after egress but before immigration duty free purchase process. Being a Brit I know of the duty free across the channel, that is to EU Britain from EU France etc..

Regards

PS As to the logic of this, it strikes me as ludicrous.

/edit add PS//

[Eff1n2ret]

This thing with banning liquids on airplanes is completely ridiculous. On my most recent flight out of the U.S., I had a very small bottle of hairspray, half a bottle of lotion and a new tube of toothpaste that they took and threw away right in front of me. I'm sorry but toothpaste isn't going to harm the airplane or anyone in it. As a matter of fact, the whole security thing at all airports is a sham. I work for a major U.S. airline at a major U.S. international airport. If a terrorist really wanted to do some harm, there are so many easy ways to do so that have nothing at all to do with security checkpoints. It's just a joke and it pisses me off.

I agree with every word of that. It's arbitrary rules, inexpertly and inconsistently applied. They cause stress and delay to millions of respectable innocent travellers because anti-discrimination legislation prevents them from overtly selective targetting. There's probably no realistic alternative, but I do wonder how much of a deterrent it really is.

Flew last weekend from Luton UK to Budapest and back with one small carry-on case only. On the way out they looked in it, saw that the aftershave was a 100ml bottle and let it go, didn't look at anything else. On the way back the aftershave was ignored but the aerosol shaving cream was pronounced "a problem", so the can was ostentatiously discharged and thrown into a bin. It all seemed pretty pointless.

[keebone]

This thing with banning liquids on airplanes is completely ridiculous. On my most recent flight out of the U.S., I had a very small bottle of hairspray, half a bottle of lotion and a new tube of toothpaste that they took and threw away right in front of me.

As far as I'm concerned any man trying to board an aeroplane in possession of a can of hairspray should be denied boarding on the basis of being an unsavoury character !

[Gumballl]

This thing with banning liquids on airplanes is completely ridiculous. On my most recent flight out of the U.S., I had a very small bottle of hairspray, half a bottle of lotion and a new tube of toothpaste that they took and threw away right in front of me. I'm sorry but toothpaste isn't going to harm the airplane or anyone in it. As a matter of fact, the whole security thing at all airports is a sham. I work for a major U.S. airline at a major U.S. international airport. If a terrorist really wanted to do some harm, there are so many easy ways to do so that have nothing at all to do with security checkpoints. It's just a joke and it pisses me off.

In case my career path someday leads me to want to become a terrorist, can you please shed some light on the "many easy ways" to do harm? I'm sure the policing agencies around the globe would also like to hear your comments.

You do know that there are explosives that can be formed into a paste? You undoubtably also know that such paste can be inserted into a tube of toothpaste and then capped off with a layer of genuine toothpaste.

An easy way to bring down an airplane is with fire. Next time you are playing with your girly hairspray, use it near a flammable source (i.e. a cigarette lighter or a lit match).

[TRIPxCORE]

This thing with banning liquids on airplanes is completely ridiculous. On my most recent flight out of the U.S., I had a very small bottle of hairspray, half a bottle of lotion and a new tube of toothpaste that they took and threw away right in front of me.

As far as I'm concerned any man trying to board an aeroplane in possession of a can of hairspray should be denied boarding on the basis of being an unsavoury character !

You really have a problem with this hairspray thing, dont you? Sorry for wanting to groom myself.

This thing with banning liquids on airplanes is completely ridiculous. On my most recent flight out of the U.S., I had a very small bottle of hairspray, half a bottle of lotion and a new tube of toothpaste that they took and threw away right in front of me. I'm sorry but toothpaste isn't going to harm the airplane or anyone in it. As a matter of fact, the whole security thing at all airports is a sham. I work for a major U.S. airline at a major U.S. international airport. If a terrorist really wanted to do some harm, there are so many easy ways to do so that have nothing at all to do with security checkpoints. It's just a joke and it pisses me off.

In case my career path someday leads me to want to become a terrorist, can you please shed some light on the "many easy ways" to do harm? I'm sure the policing agencies around the globe would also like to hear your comments.

You do know that there are explosives that can be formed into a paste? You undoubtably also know that such paste can be inserted into a tube of toothpaste and then capped off with a layer of genuine toothpaste.

An easy way to bring down an airplane is with fire. Next time you are playing with your girly hairspray, use it near a flammable source (i.e. a cigarette lighter or a lit match).

No, I didn't know that about paste because I am not an explosives expert. Nevertheless, the fact remains, it's a stupid rule. A terrorist would study diligently what the current regulations are in airports before attempting anything. They would know that there is a liquid ban going on and would never try to smuggle liquids onto an airplane as a passenger because they know it would get tossed. Unless they were really stupid, they wouldn't even try this. These people trying to do harm are not stupid. Therefore, I will always believe this rule is ridiculous.

Another aspect of this is that government agencies are trying to be racially sensitive so they check people at random. This also needs to be done away with. There is a very specific group of people that are trying to do harm. I'm sorry but racial profiling is just necessary. I should be able to keep my toothpaste.

As for you wanting me to enlighten you as to what the many things are that can be done to do harm, I am not going to write that on a public forum for all to see. That wouldn't be very smart.

[Crushdepth]

The ban covers all kinds of containers, including water, beverage, cream, lotion, oil, perfume, hair gel, spray, bath gel, foam, toothpaste and deodorant.

Also covers alcohol.

Airports of Thailand board member Chirmsak Pinthong said passengers who buy liquid products from airport duty-free shops would be issued special seals and certificates to be introduced soon".

Note that these certificates will only cover duty free you buy in THAILAND. I just made the mistake of buying a bottle on my way out of Thailand, which I wanted to bring back (from Bali). The Denpasar airport gave me a choice of 'drinking it now or leaving it here' before boarding even though it was still in Thai duty free packaging.

With a bit of hassling they agreed to stow it in the cabin, but I thought I was going to lose it for a while. Would have been some very happy airport staff if that had happened [21 year old bottle of whiskey].

[onzestan]

They would know that there is a liquid ban going on and would never try to smuggle liquids onto an airplane as a passenger because they know it would get tossed. Unless they were really stupid, they wouldn't even try this. These people trying to do harm are not stupid. Therefore, I will always believe this rule is ridiculous.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here.

Are you saying that this rule is ridiculous because the wannabe terrorist are not stupid.

Then maybe if the rule was not there they would be clever enough to know that the rule is not there, and could go ahead ?

onzestan

[onzestan]

Let's face it guys, this rule is going to stay in place as long as there are people out there willing to blow up

airplanes with possibly as many innocent people on board as possible.

And as long as a bottle of expensive whiskey is more important to you than the lives of innocent people I pity you.

Learn to live with it. The world is not the safe place we wish it to be.

My 2 cents

onzestan

[bkkandrew]

Hi,

This has been in place at least since 23 April (when I last flew from BKK) for flights to Australia.

Practically, it means allowing yourself some leeway at the departure gate because everybody has to queue up and allow airport authorities to go through your hand luggage where they then have to put all such containers in the re-sealable bag.

I say bag (singular) because when I travelled it was only 1 re-sealable bag per person and these bags are about 20 x 16cm in size so not that big.

I had my tootpaste confiscated but I found the public searching of my toiletries to be annoying. They also took my nice cold bottle of water which got me more annoyed. Worst of all they told me I could not bring my duty free purchased bottle of Jameson on board (thankfully I didn't have to purchase any perfumes for anybody). Fortunately, I had sufficient time to go back through x-ray security and get a refund. I did have to queue up again and be searched a second time.

Two things that may happen as a result of this new directive is that airport duty free will take a hit where it hurts and some people may get dehydrated or at least uncomfortable after having to surrender their bottled water.

Everybody will have an opinion on whether this is a good or bad thing. I know what mine is...

I flew on 25th April to Abu Dhabi and saw no evidence of this, had liquids on me and there were no queues at the baggage screening check...

[Soju]

Let's face it guys, this rule is going to stay in place as long as there are people out there willing to blow up

airplanes with possibly as many innocent people on board as possible.

And as long as a bottle of expensive whiskey is more important to you than the lives of innocent people I pity you.

Learn to live with it. The world is not the safe place we wish it to be.

My 2 cents

onzestan

Agree with you. In fact I see a lot of shortcomings in even what they have implemented and once a terrorist finds a way around it they'll probably come out with even stricter rules in the future. I'm not looking forward to the new rules, but don't see any way around them. I travel with just a carryon 95% of the time or more, and the new rules mean I have to either check in my bag and then deal with the wait for my baggage or find some other solution.

[onzestan]

Agree with you. In fact I see a lot of shortcomings in even what they have implemented and once a terrorist finds a way around it they'll probably come out with even stricter rules in the future. I'm not looking forward to the new rules, but don't see any way around them. I travel with just a carryon 95% of the time or more, and the new rules mean I have to either check in my bag and then deal with the wait for my baggage or find some other solution.

I understand the problem, as for me since I always travel to the same destination, I have everything I need there and only take my medication (with prescriptions) a change of underwear and shirt and socks. Showers can be had in the lounges, and a disposable razor is easy to find.

Anyway thank you for the support.

cheers

onzestan

[wpcoe]

A terrorist would study diligently what the current regulations are in airports before attempting anything. They would know that there is a liquid ban going on and would never try to smuggle liquids onto an airplane as a passenger because they know it would get tossed. Unless they were really stupid, they wouldn't even try this.

I'm not sure you really meant to, but you just justified the liquids ban.

[mike_rad]

Looks like the propaganda campaign has been successful:

August terror plot is a 'fiction' underscoring police failures

British Army expert Lieutenant-Colonel (ret.) Nigel Wylde, a former senior British Army Intelligence Officer, has suggested that the police and government story about the "terror plot" revealed on 10th August was part of a "pattern of lies and deceit." ...

Lt. Col. Wylde, who was awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for his command of the Belfast Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in 1974, described this scenario as a "fiction." Creating liquid explosives is a "highly dangerous and sophisticated task," he states, one that requires not only significant chemical expertise but also appropriate equipment.

"The idea that these people could sit in the plane toilet and simply mix together these normal household fluids to create a high explosive capable of blowing up the entire aircraft is untenable," said Lt. Col. Wylde, who was trained as an ammunition technical officer responsible for terrorist bomb disposal at the Royal Army Ordnance Corps in Sandhurst." ...

Despite the implausibility of this scenario, it has been used to justify wide-ranging new security measures that threaten to permanently curtail civil liberties and to suspend sections of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act of 1998. "Why were the public delicately informed of an alleged conspiracy which the authorities knew, or should have known, could not have worked?" asked Lt. Col. Wylde.

"This is not a new problem," he added, noting that 'shoe-bomber' Richard Reid had attempted to use this type of explosive on a plane in December 2001. "If this threat is real, what has been done to develop explosive test kits capable of detecting peroxide based explosives?" asked Wylde. "These are the real issues about protecting the public that have not been publicised. Instead we are going to get demands for more internment without trial."

[TRIPxCORE]

A terrorist would study diligently what the current regulations are in airports before attempting anything. They would know that there is a liquid ban going on and would never try to smuggle liquids onto an airplane as a passenger because they know it would get tossed. Unless they were really stupid, they wouldn't even try this.

I'm not sure you really meant to, but you just justified the liquids ban.

Look, like I said, they can have all the bans they want to have on anything as long as racial profiling goes along with it. It just has to be that way.

[think_too_mut]

Let's face it guys, this rule is going to stay in place as long as there are people out there willing to blow up

airplanes with possibly as many innocent people on board as possible.

And as long as a bottle of expensive whiskey is more important to you than the lives of innocent people I pity you.

Learn to live with it. The world is not the safe place we wish it to be.

My 2 cents

onzestan

That's what Holywood crap have made it's jaw-dropped consumers believe. And authorities watch the same movies.

I can't stop ridiculing them all.

Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?

Let's whip up some TATP and find out

Published Thursday 17th August 2006 09:42 GMT

Binary liquid explosives are a sexy staple of Hollywood thrillers. It would be tedious to enumerate the movie terrorists who've employed relatively harmless liquids that, when mixed, immediately rain destruction upon an innocent populace, like the seven angels of God's wrath pouring out their bowls full of pestilence and pain.

The funny thing about these movies is, we never learn just which two chemicals can be handled safely when separate, yet instantly blow us all to kingdom come when combined. Nevertheless, we maintain a great eagerness to believe in these substances, chiefly because action movies wouldn't be as much fun if we didn't.

Now we have news of the recent, supposedly real-world, terrorist plot to destroy commercial airplanes by smuggling onboard the benign precursors to a deadly explosive, and mixing up a batch of liquid death in the lavatories. So, The Register has got to ask, were these guys for real, or have they, and the counterterrorist officials supposedly protecting us, been watching too many action movies?

We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.

Or at least that's what we're hearing, and loudly, through the mainstream media and its legions of so-called "terrorism experts." But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living. But they've seen the same movies that you and I have seen, and so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard.

Better killing through chemistry

Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.

First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.

But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.

Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.

It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.

Easy does it

Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.

After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.

The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency.

One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

We believe this because a peer-reviewed 2004 study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) entitled "Decomposition of Triacetone Triperoxide is an Entropic Explosion" tells us that the explosive force of TATP comes from the sudden decomposition of a solid into gasses. There's no rapid oxidizing of fuel, as there is with many other explosives: rather, the substance changes state suddenly through an entropic process, and quickly releases a respectable amount of energy when it does. (Thus the lack of ingredients typically associated with explosives makes TATP, a white crystalline powder resembling sugar, difficult to detect with conventional bomb sniffing gear.)

Mrs. Satan

By now you'll be asking why these jihadist wannabes didn't conspire simply to bring TATP onto planes, colored with a bit of vegetable dye, and disguised as, say, a powdered fruit-flavored drink. The reason is that they would be afraid of failing: TATP is notoriously sensitive and unstable. Mainstream journalists like to tell us that terrorists like to call it "the mother of Satan." (Whether this reputation is deserved, or is a consequence of homebrewing by unqualified hacks, remains open to debate.)

It's been claimed that the 7/7 bombers used it, but this has not been positively confirmed. Some sources claim that they used C-4, and others that they used RDX. Nevertheless, the belief that they used TATP has stuck with the media, although going about in a crowded city at rush hour with an unstable homebrew explosive in a backpack is not the brightest of all possible moves. It's surprising that none of the attackers enjoyed an unscheduled launch into Paradise.

So, assuming that the homebrew variety of TATP is highly sensitive and unstable - or at least that our inept jihadists would believe that - to avoid getting blown up in the taxi on the way to the airport, one might, if one were educated in terror tactics primarily by hollywood movies, prefer simply to dump the precursors into an airplane toilet bowl and let the mother of Satan work her magic. Indeed, the mixture will heat rapidly as TATP begins to form, and it will soon explode. But this won't happen with much force, because little TATP will have formed by the time the explosion occurs.

We asked University of Rhode Island Chemistry Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, who has actual, practical experience with TATP, if this is a reasonable assumption, and she tolds us that merely dumping the precursors together would create "a violent reaction," but not a detonation.

To release the energy needed to bring down a plane (far more difficult to do than many imagine, as Aloha Airlines Flight 243 neatly illustrates), it's necessary to synthesize a good amount of TATP with care.

Jack Bauer sense

So the fabled binary liquid explosive - that is, the sudden mixing of hydrogen peroxide and acetone with sulfuric acid to create a plane-killing explosion, is out of the question. Meanwhile, making TATP ahead of time carries a risk that the mission will fail due to premature detonation, although it is the only plausible approach.

Certainly, if we can imagine a group of jihadists smuggling the necessary chemicals and equipment on board, and cooking up TATP in the lavatory, then we've passed from the realm of action blockbusters to that of situation comedy.

It should be small comfort that the security establishments of the UK and the USA - and the "terrorism experts" who inform them and wheedle billions of dollars out of them for bomb puffers and face recognition gizmos and remote gait analyzers and similar hi-tech phrenology gear - have bought the Hollywood binary liquid explosive myth, and have even acted upon it.

We've given extraordinary credit to a collection of jihadist wannabes with an exceptionally poor grasp of the mechanics of attacking a plane, whose only hope of success would have been a pure accident. They would have had to succeed in spite of their own ignorance and incompetence, and in spite of being under police surveillance for a year.

But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy. We have reacted to a movie plot. Liquids are now banned in aircraft cabins (while crystalline white powders would be banned instead, if anyone in charge were serious about security). Nearly everything must now go into the hold, where adequate amounts of explosives can easily be detonated from the cabin with cell phones, which are generally not banned.

Action heroes

The al-Qaeda franchise will pour forth its bowl of pestilence and death. We know this because we've watched it countless times on TV and in the movies, just as our officials have done. Based on their behavior, it's reasonable to suspect that everything John Reid and Michael Chertoff know about counterterrorism, they learned watching the likes of Bruce Willis, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Vin Diesel, and The Rock (whose palpable homoerotic appeal it would be discourteous to emphasize).

It's a pity that our security rests in the hands of government officials who understand as little about terrorism as the Florida clowns who needed their informant to suggest attack scenarios, as the 21/7 London bombers who injured no one, as lunatic "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, as the Forest Gate nerve gas attackers who had no nerve gas, as the British nitwits who tried to acquire "red mercury," and as the recent binary liquid bomb attackers who had no binary liquid bombs.

For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury.

You won't hear about those fellows until it's too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they haven't got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots.

Meanwhile, the real thing draws ever closer.

[Shrubbery]

There are plenty of arguments for and against the ban of liquids.

I think that if some fanatic(s) is (are) determined to bring an aircraft down, they will probably succeed.

However, if the security measures in place help to deter them. The ban can't be such a bad idea.

There may well be some inconvenience to travellers, but surely it is better to be safe than sorry. Or even dead.

In time people will get used to the liquid ban, as they have with "sharp objects" and the likes.

If and aircraft was brought down by a bomb made from a mixture of liquids, I wonder what the "anti liquid ban brigade would say".

[think_too_mut]

In time people will get used to the liquid ban, as they have with "sharp objects" and the likes.

I just flew on JAL and metal knives were with the meal cuttlery for each and every passenger, in economy class.

400 knives, at any time, on every of their flights.

Could be, some (important) parts of the world do not fear terrorism as CNN and other rubbish TVs would have them believe?

Emirates even let u get/send SMSs and mails (for a fee)..on your on-board mobile phone ...where is the fear there?

[farangsay]

Years ago I bought a "tourist souvenir" sword in Tokyo.

I hand carried it to Singapore.

The customs guy ripped all the brown paper wrapping off it and told me I

couldn't take it through. He told me I could pick it up again on my way

out ( and pointed out the room where I could collect it).

Some days later I was wandering around Changi airport with a sword

under my arm for a couple of hours , which got me a LOT of nervous

looks from other travellers but no other problems.

[Shrubbery]

In time people will get used to the liquid ban, as they have with "sharp objects" and the likes.

I just flew on JAL and metal knives were with the meal cuttlery for each and every passenger, in economy class.

400 knives, at any time, on every of their flights.

Could be, some (important) parts of the world do not fear terrorism as CNN and other rubbish TVs would have them believe?

Emirates even let u get/send SMSs and mails (for a fee)..on your on-board mobile phone ...where is the fear there?

Some countries/nationalities are more at risk than others, so yes some countries probably do not fear terrorism as much as Britain, Australia and the USA.

I'm not an avionics engineer but I believe the use of mobile phones is not permitted because of the possible interference with avionic systems on the aircraft.

On board systems that allow passengers to send/receive emails & sms will have been approved by the relevant aviation authorities.

[think_too_mut]

I'm not an avionics engineer but I believe the use of mobile phones is not permitted because of the possible interference with avionic systems on the aircraft.

On board systems that allow passengers to send/receive emails & sms will have been approved by the relevant aviation authorities.

If mobile phones were of any danger, they would not be allowed onboard, it's much easier to detect them than obscure hair gels and baby milk.

There are always several if not dozens in the cabin left ON.

[Shrubbery]

Sorry, I did not make myself clear.

The use of mobiles is prohibited because they may interfere with avionics systems. I am not saying they do interfere.

If passengers leave their phones on, they are foolish and irresponsible.

The prohibition is for the safety of everyone.

[backflip]

Electronics can act unpredictably. Several years ago, an Apple notebook product caused an airliner to take evasive action (read as "nose dive"). The offending product was tested by the FCC, FAA, Apple, and a 3rd-party laboratory...and nothing was found. As the previous poster noted, it's best to obey the rules for everyone's benefit.