US to ban electronic devices from flights
Discussion
El stovey said:
There are no explosives the danger to the aircraft comes from mixing/connecting the parts together. You don't have a timer.
If there are no explosives involved then how do you get it to explode, Einstein 
No amount of hacking bits of electronic circuitry together is going to produce a viable bomb. There needs to be explosive material involved, do you really not get this?
El stovey said:
There are no explosives the danger to the aircraft comes from mixing/connecting the parts together. You don't have a timer.
Being in the game, you obviously have insider knowledge that we lack, but are sworn to secrecy over. 
I guess this is the next step along from mixing-liquid type bombs we have been running scared from for several years.
I can personally think of nothing that would fit in a lap top that would cause a big enough explosion to down a plane, but is harmless until assembled, other than C4 and a detonator.
But that doesn't mean such equipment doesn't exist.
RBH58 said:
King Herald said:
Maybe. However, when you currently go through security the lap top has to be pulled out and run through in a separate box. I assume this is required to check it properly. If it is buried deep inside a suitcase, surrounded by other travellers paraphernalia, hair dryers, charging cable, couple of coat hangers, etc to, there is little chance of it being scrutinised properly. One would think.
Exactly Baggage handling systems contain a number of scanners of which checked luggage pass through multiple times before being dumped in the bin correspending to their destination. If anything remotely suspicious is identified it is removed from the racetracks for further inspection.
The scanners themselves are able to map the contents of a suitcase utilising colour maps to indentify material as well as item density. If something is clearly out of place (a dense packet inside a laptop that isn't a battery or HD) despite being underneath a ton of other items, it will be picked up.
Some airports are a little behind the times but the technology is available.
Edited by Tonberry on Thursday 23 March 10:30
You (Ed) seem to have got entirely the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
If it is components it will be explosive, initiator, optional power source and optional timer. At least one of those is detectable.
If mixing stuff where there is no explosive you need containers of chemicals and or liquids. Not lumps of equipment.
The laptop threat model usually involves ones with a LiPo pack replaced by a shaped block of plastic explosive of some description. Subtle but density and chemical signature make it show up in normal checks; only crap airports/airlines have generally been vulnerable. Usually only a threat in-cabin as you need to push the thing against the hull to be vaguely sure of a breach, in the hold you'll more likely get a bang and a bit of overpressure and nothing more.
In the grand scheme it's not a big threat and there is a whole world of possible options that exist that don't involve things that go bang and that no one panics over because the risk isn't significant.
But as I said if you want to cause economic disruption then a new 'security threat' is a reasonable option.
Come back when it starts to apply to American and European carriers.
If it is components it will be explosive, initiator, optional power source and optional timer. At least one of those is detectable.
If mixing stuff where there is no explosive you need containers of chemicals and or liquids. Not lumps of equipment.
The laptop threat model usually involves ones with a LiPo pack replaced by a shaped block of plastic explosive of some description. Subtle but density and chemical signature make it show up in normal checks; only crap airports/airlines have generally been vulnerable. Usually only a threat in-cabin as you need to push the thing against the hull to be vaguely sure of a breach, in the hold you'll more likely get a bang and a bit of overpressure and nothing more.
In the grand scheme it's not a big threat and there is a whole world of possible options that exist that don't involve things that go bang and that no one panics over because the risk isn't significant.
But as I said if you want to cause economic disruption then a new 'security threat' is a reasonable option.
Come back when it starts to apply to American and European carriers.
RBH58 said:
I give up. Clearly El stovey must be advising the US Government LOL
I'm really trying to understand your point.Do you not think it's possible that this planned device intelligence has apparently uncovered is made from separate parts that when put together react/catch fire /explode?
You can't prepare it and put it in the hold as it blows up/reacts/does whatever when the bits are mixed/put together.
It's not that difficult a concept to grasp is it?
Terrorists are constantly trying to design devices that can be smuggled on aircraft. When new designs are discovered, either through intelligence or devices discovered by airport security or devices that have failed to properly work, them new plans and procedures are designed to hopefully stop them occurring or reoccurring.
King Herald said:
Because we all know that a couple of terrorists would never meet up in the bogs to mix together the contents of each persons four or five 100ml bottles of bomb mix into a couple of empty beer cans...... 
I've walked on board with probably half a litre of liquids or gels many times.
When I was working offshore I'd take all my deodorants, toothpastes, mouthwash etc in my carry on, as well as a plethora of electronics, iPad, two phones, chargers, headphones, connector cables, two hard drives etc.
Hard to believe any security check could sift quickly through that lot by X-ray and decide I was innocent. Or is it indeed all just a placebo?
The whole 'mixable liquids plot' was highly, highly suspect from the off.I've walked on board with probably half a litre of liquids or gels many times.
When I was working offshore I'd take all my deodorants, toothpastes, mouthwash etc in my carry on, as well as a plethora of electronics, iPad, two phones, chargers, headphones, connector cables, two hard drives etc.
Hard to believe any security check could sift quickly through that lot by X-ray and decide I was innocent. Or is it indeed all just a placebo?
At the first trial, of the 8 charged only three were found guilty of any of the charges and there was no verdict reached on the main charges of conspiring to kill by blowing up the aircraft:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_a...
The story peddled to the public was that the terrorists would take on board innocuous and undetectable liquids that looked like everyday materials (water, soda, shampoo, mouthwash etc) and then simply mix them up into a deadly explosive when airside.
Complete rubbish. While one can manufacture explosives out of somewhat inert materials, it takes a hell of a lot of time and effort and would be very difficult to pull off in flight without being detected.
No wonder the authorities had so much trouble securing guilty verdicts. It took two trials and even then some of the charged walked free and only a minority of the people originally arrested for the plot were even brought to court.
King Herald said:
I'm pretty sure a ground to air hand held missile device would be by far the easiest way to down a plane....
And airport security can do nothing about it.
Yes but that's been tried a few times already in Kenya and probably in Egypt and turkey. It might be easier to get a device that can be downloaded and made by would be internet jihadists than expecting them to get hold of surface to air missiles. And airport security can do nothing about it.
Of course there are a range of methods to bring down an aircraft. You can't mitigate against all of them but where you can react to them and do something, then isn't that worth doing?
Presumably terrorists are trying a range of methods. What are the security services supposed to do when they apparently unearth credible new plans and plots for attacks? If someone brought down an aircraft and it turned out it was a known method that security services ignored then everyone would rightly be rather upset.
Jonesy23 said:
Come back when it starts to apply to American and European carriers.
The ban is by destination http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39352133
Plenty of UK airlines will be affected.
RBH58 said:
El stovey said:
You can't prepare it and put it in the hold as it blows up/reacts/does whatever when the bits are mixed/put together.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting it's not possible to build a bomb that operates remotely on a timer? Seriously?!RBH58 said:
Anything that fills the cargo hold with lithium batteries for a benefit that is "highly debatable" is a dumb idea. This seems like a dumb idea.
I am far from convinced that this move increases passenger safety, I am deeply concerned that it may, in fact, be exposing even more passengers to even greater risks.
As a VERY frequent flyer, I am not happy about this move. It makes me feel less safe.
Agreed. Lithium ion batteries above a certain size are curretnnly banned hold luggage. Concentrating hundred of them together in the hold is stupid.I am far from convinced that this move increases passenger safety, I am deeply concerned that it may, in fact, be exposing even more passengers to even greater risks.
As a VERY frequent flyer, I am not happy about this move. It makes me feel less safe.
Airport security is poor in any case. They just look for what they've been told to look for. In Istanbul last week, they foudn my bottle of water in my rucksack, but I only realised when I got home that they had failed to notice the two litre camelbak bladder in there, that was two thirds full. I had flown with it from Munich to Istanbul the day before.
Edited by Zod on Thursday 23 March 10:28
El stovey said:
Jonesy23 said:
Come back when it starts to apply to American and European carriers.
The ban is by destination http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39352133
Plenty of UK airlines will be affected.
And the impact on Euro/US carriers isn't exactly big is it?
Jonesy23 said:
El stovey said:
Jonesy23 said:
Come back when it starts to apply to American and European carriers.
The ban is by destination http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39352133
Plenty of UK airlines will be affected.
And the impact on Euro/US carriers isn't exactly big is it?
El stovey said:
I give up. This ban is due to a specific plan for a device. Nothing to do with bombs with timers.
They are banning PED because of fears that they may be disguised bombs or bomb components. What difference does it make if they are checked in or carried on if they are "ready to go" and DON'T NEED assembly? Answer: No difference whatsoever. What's hard to comprehend about that?RBH58 said:
El stovey said:
I give up. This ban is due to a specific plan for a device. Nothing to do with bombs with timers.
They are banning PED because of fears that they may be disguised bombs or bomb components. What difference does it make if they are checked in or carried on if they are "ready to go" and DON'T NEED assembly? Answer: No difference whatsoever. What's hard to comprehend about that?The devices you describe can be recognised by security measures.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff