Gaz

Bit of a weird one here but go with me. Travelling through AMS this weekend reminded me of a seemingly glaringly obvious security loophole I first thought about a few years ago, which nobody else seems to have noticed. The loophole in question would easily allow someone prepared to make a bit of effort to get any sort of liquid they wanted through security and onto the plane in large volumes with virtually no risk of getting caught. If, as we're constantly told, liquids over 100ml are a threat to planes, this would represent a pretty major security risk.

Obviously I'm not going to post details of what you'd do on a public forum, but I think that if this loophole would work (and unless I am seriously missing something, it would), AMS and other similar airports would need to modify their liquids security arrangements. It seems pointless to have severe restrictions on liquids if they can be easily circumvented.

I'd really like to PM details of this loophole to one of the regulars on this board who knows AMS well in order to confirm this would work... because if it would, I'm sure something should be done about it, although I've got no idea what. But in any case, if it turned out at some point that someone exploited this loophole, and I'd noticed it years before and done nothing, I'd feel pretty awful... so at the risk of looking absolutely daft, I'm posting about it on here.

So, erm, any regulars familiar with AMS want to volunteer to hear me out via PM?

graraps

Before I PM you, is this applicable to both departing and connecting pax? Both Schengen and international?

sbm12

Who cares?? The liquids thing is a farce (and this thread probably belongs in TS/S to hammer that point home) so it doesn't really matter if you have more than 100mL of stuff with you.

Gaz

Only departing, not connecting. Definitely applies to international, and probably Schengen also, but very rarely fly AMS to Schengen countries so can't be sure.

Gaz

It's not simply more than 100ml, it's pretty much as much as you can carry.

I also agree the liquids rule is a farce, but clearly those who put it in place believe there's a reason behind it. If it was revealed that the security arrangements are not only a PITA but totally bypassable by anyone who seriously wants to get liquids on-board, the airport authorities would need to either swap to a system like at LHR which can't be easily circumvented, or admit there's no risk anyway and abolish the whole thing.

I must admit, after watching the recent programme on BBC (I think) and seeing the explosion they simulated with a couple of litres of the right liquid, whilst I don't necessarily agree with the 100ml rule, it doesn't seem quite as ridiculous as it did before.

graraps

If I am to exclude connections, I've only ever departed AMS about three times in my entire life, so I'll leave this to others to comment on.

But I do agree with sbm12, this security thing is a total farce...Last year, PRG had no security controls between Int'l (security at the gate) and Schengen terminals (central security) for around 3 months. You could just go through passport control, walk across to the other terminal and literally enter the plane with a bazooka in your carryon and nobody would notice (at least as long as you could fit it in the overhead bin).
Nothing happened. Terrywrists have long moved on to softer targets.

Gaz

Hmmm, I mostly agree with that, but look. What's the point in having restrictions which are extremely inconvenient for millions of passengers, not to mention wasteful (think of all the bottles of water that get confiscated in airports).... but that also are utterly ineffectual at doing what they're supposed to. If we don't need these restrictions, great. If we need them, they might as well actually work.

Globaliser

That - and the recent conviction of some of the August 2006 bombers - just go to show that one shouldn't believe a word spoken by most of chattering classes (often found on Internet forums, funnily enough) who mouth off about how ridiculous all the security restrictions are; and how there is no risk of anything bad happening anyway; and anyway the bad people don't know how to do it; and anyway it's all technically impossible.

I remember all those guffawing hoots of derision at the idea that none of the August 2006 bombers would manage to mix up a concoction of highly-unstable chemicals carried on board in thermos flasks because they had to be kept at freezing temperature. But I'll bet that none of those people now have the decency to admit that they were looking at the wrong type of explosives.

I agree about the circumvention though. The rules are there for a reason. So if there's a way around them, then that needs to be fixed.

graraps

Anything is possible if you're determined enough. Such an explosion is something equally possible to do in trains or cruise ships. Heck, it's even easier to do in a crowded city square or marketplace. Shall we, in your opinion, install WTMDs at every underground station as well as around every city square in the world? Is this the answer?

Globaliser

Two linked answers:-

1. [*]

Just because you can't prevent everything, that's not a reason not to prevent what you can prevent. Current airline security restrictions amount to no more than a significant irritant and annoyance.

graraps

Only a question of cost, I'm afraid.

I don't agree with that. What about the kamikazi attacks in busy places in Israel etc (also see recent attack in Islamabad)? You think they expend more effort than somebody wanting to bring down an airliner?

Gaz

Received a PM from swintonowl outlining the exact method I was concerned about so it seems there's definitely an issue here and more people probably have noticed.

FWAAA

I agree that the UK-US liquid scare from August 10, 2006, is a farce as well. I voted for Pres Bush but it was obvious at the time that Bush and Blair needed a "wag the dog" diversion to keep their populations in constant fear of the always-present terrorists and to demonstrate that they were on the ball and doing something about all those terrorists. IMO, that's the reason behind it.

Abolish the whole thing? Yeah, that's gonna happen now that the UK and the US have basically imposed this 100ml crap on the entire world. They acted like the future of the planet depended on the 100ml/one liter bag requirement and the confiscation of billions of dollars worth of water and duty free products.

The merchants of fear have made inroads at your house.

Resist before thay make the big sale.

If it only takes a couple litres of the right liquids, then why haven't the terrorists who hate us blown airplanes out of the sky by combining their 100ml bottles onboard? Half a dozen co-conspirators could each bring about 10 100ml bottles (that's what I can put in my one litre bag) plus their larger contact lens solution (I've never had a security person do anything with mine). So each terrorist could bring a liter and a half onboard. Large, empty bottles are routinely ignored here in the USA by the TSA, as long as they're empty.

So if it's not as ridiculous as it did before, ask yourself "why haven't they done it already?" Why have no airplanes been blown up with liquids? Does anyone really think the only terrorists capable of carrying it out were arrested two years ago?

And why didn't any terrorists do it prior to August 10, 2006? It's not new chemistry. It doesn't involve anything recently invented.

It's nothing more than a modern-day boogeyman that scares even otherwise reasonable adults. You summed it up perfectly when you used the word "farce."

And please don't take offense at this, but do you really think you're the only person who has noticed this "loophole?" Don'tcha think the security "experts" at AMS (and the similar airports) already know? Not merely observant passengers, but the people who spend their entire working days designing, maintaining and improving the security protocols - I'll bet money they already know. And probably, so do tens of thousands of other observant passengers.

Gaz

Totally agree with this, and your post before it.

Also, without wanting to sound Fox News-esque, AQ have a long history of targeting planes, and bringing down a Western plane is just about the biggest statement they could make... especially given how secure airports now are.

However, pulling it off now would be substantially more difficult now than in 2001, and after a series of bodged attempts, I'd say it's more likely that elements interested in downing a plane are waiting for when they know they can get it right, rather than simply forgetting about it.

Gaz

agreed.

If the restrictions are to continue, with all the inconvenience and wastage that come with them, might we at least get them right? The restrictions are irksome enough, but if they're totally pointless as well, the level of ridicule becomes mind-boggling.

To be fair, this is considerably more difficult and fraught with risk of getting caught than the AMS loophole. It relies on numerous people getting large numbers of dodgy looking 100ml bottles through. I've regularly seen 100ml bottles inspected when they look ropey - I remember when my LHR staff wanted to test my girlfriend's make-up for something. It's possible, yes, but in terms of ease and risk, the AMS loophole is a different league, and if as you imply, you're also aware of it, you'll know this.

Why did the London tube bombers take two years after the UK joined the US in the invasion of Iraq to strike? There was absolutely nothing stopping them doing it the next week if they wanted. Terrorists don't generally rush into things at the first opportunity, and saying "If it was possible, why hasn't it already been done?" just doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.