Laptop flight ban - into UK but not out?

[Dave-G]

Laptops have been banned from aircraft cabins from some middle east counties into UK... but not out of UK.

 

It seems short sighted to me that many terrorists already here have a work round if they want to use an electronic device on an aircraft to win their free virgins by flying home.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Dave-G

[kingo15]

I was thinking the same. As we have been told we have so many home grown terrorists as they say.

Plus they have proven they can get across Europe easily. So all they will do if they want to do anything is just get to a country that isn't on the list.

[Bobba]

How long before the ban is extended to all flights? Close one avenue and determined people will find another.

 

If attacks in the streets of Paris, London etc are regarded by terrorists as legitimate targets then why not flights between the two? Indeed why not any flight in the world of the infidels?

 

This current ban may well be the sign of things to come.

[AVB]

Laptops have been banned from aircraft cabins from some middle east counties into UK... but not out of UK.

 

It seems short sighted to me that many terrorists already here have a work round if they want to use an electronic device on an aircraft to win their free virgins by flying home.

 

I think that it is also because of concerns over the quality of security at these airports.

[wandringstar]

Although I have been on many flights, I have never really enjoyed it, through either a lack of comfort, boredom, or fear, the fear being, aircraft or pilot malfunction or hijack.

 

When I hear what these small devices can be turned into, then I have to ask what else? I have a couple more trips on my list, but after those I wouldn't care if I never flew again.

Edited March 22, 2017 by wandringstar

[four-wheel-drive]

If it helps to keep people safe I do not understand why anyone would complain about it.

[Paul223]

 

I think that it is also because of concerns over the quality of security at these airports.

This, I flew from Riyadh to Heathrow on monday night, the scanner operators at security were having a long chat, not even looking in the direction of the scanner screen, and this attitude towards security is the norm.

The short walk from gate to the British Airways aircraft has 3x security checks, these are manned by British Airways staff, who search most hand luggage and body check everyone.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Paul223

[Paul223]

If it helps to keep people safe I do not understand why anyone would complain about it.

Indeed, always be glad for attention to detail or a change in practice, I tend to think it usually means the authorities have new information.

[Hamster]

There is something sinister behind this and it has nothing to do with either terrorism or safety. How could it when the devices are allowed in the hold anyway ! You're being duped as usual.

[old'un]

There is something sinister behind this and it has nothing to do with either terrorism or safety. How could it when the devices are allowed in the hold anyway ! You're being duped as usual.

Because the hold containers are now blast proof

[kingo15]

Because the hold containers are now blast proof

So we are told 😉

[Rewulf]

There is something sinister behind this and it has nothing to do with either terrorism or safety. How could it when the devices are allowed in the hold anyway ! You're being duped as usual.

 

I would imagine its down to a specific threat uncovered,or it could indeed be a cover for something else.

We shall probably never know, like the liquid restriction.

For what its worth, a determind attacker with some knowledge, could easily construct a weapon/bomb ect to take a plane down,a small amount of plastic explosive and a detonator ,concealed in a camera or a childrens toy ,enough to take a bulkhead out.

Carry on,or hold luggage are rarely checked by search, they rely heavily on xray and 'sniffer' machines.

If people can find a way to get drugs through,Im pretty sure explosives arent beyond the means of terrorists.

[besty57]

Does it really matter if people are inconvenienced a bit ,so there might be a few delays,and some of these devices will have to go in the hold.

I don't think they do these things lightly, after all its for you safety,

[achosenman]

Because the hold containers are now blast proof

 

Do you have a link to info on that?

[Hamster]

Because the hold containers are now blast proof

 

OK, then why is it only 6 countries affected and in such a dubious way as in flights out of but not into ! And how come those countries aren't also on Trumps so called safety ban ? And why does it only extend to 14 carriers and not every single carrier in the whole wide world ?

 

They've done a job on your psyche and you go along with it, it has nothing to do with safety. The best thing for our safety would be to stop manufacturing wars which leads to terrorism.

[Zapp]

My view would be that there will be specific intelligence of a credible intent to mount an attack via compromised security (ie hand luggage checks) using doctored devices at the named airports and on certain routes, giving you the source destinations and the carriers in question by association, if they havent actually been named.

[Hamster]

My view would be that there will be specific intelligence of a credible intent to mount an attack via compromised security (ie hand luggage checks) using doctored devices at the named airports and on certain routes, giving you the source destinations and the carriers in question by association, if they havent actually been named.

 

Do you recall Blair getting Heathrow surrounded by the army on "credible" sources ?

[Zapp]

There's no doubt that these things have been pulled in the past for political reasons by various governments including ours. Similarly, there's no doubt that there is an intent by terrorist groupings to attack civil aviation. It's no smarter to automatically assume it is one or the other depending on your view.

[Dave-G]

Because the hold containers are now blast proof

I think its because passenger cabins and flight deck are pressurised so would rapidly de-pressurise or burst open if the airframe skin is damaged - whilst there would be no such effect in the hold.

[old'un]

 

Do you have a link to info on that?

Not sure which airlines have taken this blast proof bag but in my mind it should be made compulsory.....http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scientists-develop-14mm-thick-bomb-proof-bag-to-protect-against-explosives-on-planes-10422195.html

 

or...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33650713

Edited March 22, 2017 by old'un

[achosenman]

The glaring failure of all the tests is that they were not conducted with the aircraft pressurizesd. I have not personaly heard of any airline adopting these and I am on the "inside" of the industry. They may be coming at some point in the future, but sadly I suspect technology isn't quite there yet.

 

One test I did hear about with the aircraft pressurised, resulted in a spectacular amount of destruction to the airframe. You have to remember when you fly in B767/757 and that generation of aircraft the cabin is pressurised to 8.25psi. Two over pressurisation relief valves open in an emergency. They are not designed to cope with the kind of over pressurisation an IED will generate. Think of a balloon inflated to just below its bursting point...that's the situation for an aircraft in flight.

[Dave-G]

I'm wondering if its anything to do with Lithium batteries exploding and being banned from flights over a year ago.

 

More recently I've read somewhere about IS had been found to have been working on a laptop type bomb - and I guess its quite feasible for a suicide bomber to short out their lappy battery pack against a window.

[m3vert]

Obviously I am not in the know regarding the actual threat re the device, but having flown out of some of the banned airports multiple times recently, I can confirm that the security is at times, lets say, lax! In my opinion the international governing body for air travel (ICAO) should be applying severe restrictions on certain airports due to the attitude of their security staff. In the airports I use, the security at times are far more interested in their smartphone than the contents of the bag being scanned. They are pretty much relying on the scanner software to tell them their might be an issue rather than looking for the issue!

Edited March 22, 2017 by m3vert

[oowee]

I think its because passenger cabins and flight deck are pressurised so would rapidly de-pressurise or burst open if the airframe skin is damaged - whilst there would be no such effect in the hold.

Also discussion today that if they are in the cabin they can be triggered at will. (time delay would soon get around that of course.

Checks at some of these international ports are woeful.

If this is a credible threat it cant be long before this is applied for all airports regardless of origin and destination.

[old'un]

The glaring failure of all the tests is that they were not conducted with the aircraft pressurizesd. I have not personaly heard of any airline adopting these and I am on the "inside" of the industry. They may be coming at some point in the future, but sadly I suspect technology isn't quite there yet.

 

One test I did hear about with the aircraft pressurised, resulted in a spectacular amount of destruction to the airframe. You have to remember when you fly in B767/757 and that generation of aircraft the cabin is pressurised to 8.25psi. Two over pressurisation relief valves open in an emergency. They are not designed to cope with the kind of over pressurisation an IED will generate. Think of a balloon inflated to just below its bursting point...that's the situation for an aircraft in flight.

That is the idea behind the blast bag, it contains the blast within the bag.

 

I first heard of this technology two or more years ago, think the EU were funding its development and there was talk of all airlines using it by 2017.

So the technology is there, but its the case of the airlines putting their hand in their pocket ££