WorldLux

She was traveling without baby ...

The problem is, that security can't determine whether all 14.8 litres were milk or liquid/solid explosives or a mixture of both (with explosives hidden among milk bottles).

That is why, the rule is: No liquids. The rule has been around long enough for everybody to know it. 100 ml containers in a 1L zip bag. End of story.

Exceptions are made for medical reasons. A reasonable amount of baby milk can be carried in the carry-on. A reasonable amount is approximately, what the infant needs during flight.

Personally I think the security was correct to refuse her. She was travelling without her child, thus making the need for food (baby milk) uncalled-for.

Even with child, 500 oz. would be an unreasonable quantity. If you want to get liquids from one point to the other, there are plenty of alternatives (air freight, checked-in luggage, etc...)

The UK (and Europe in generally) shouldn't have that much of an issue with guns since relatively few are in legal circulation. Criminals tend to leave their firearms at home when traveling by air.

Worcester

If security (specifically the various sensors around the security gates) can not tell the difference between breast milk and explosives then it's all over for all of us.

Yes I agree 14 liters seems a little extreme, especially in your carry on, but I maintain that what we perceive as tight security is not as secure as it seems and a more rational approach would make things safer and quicker.

LondonElite

She would have been way over her hand luggage weight limits anyway, and I suspect her check-in limits as well.

theddo

There's a website which states the rules clearly, why would she think she'd be able to bring 15L of milk simply because she's a mom?

Knowing BA they'd probably let her board with the extra bag, too.

WorldLux

Stop watching Hollywood movies, where every cop is John McClane and every counterterrorist agent is Jack Bauer. Ordinary people work at security screening. They don't have neither the training nor the timing to analyze the contents of a bottle. This is especially true for security screenings, that have been outsourced to private operators.

And that's the problem: Their machines can't tell and they certainly can't analyze the contents of every bottle. Otherwise, you'll get either a thousands threads on FT, why security is so slow again or worse why plane's keep exploding.

HIDDY

I don't like disagreeing with Worcester but on this occasion I agree with you. If they allow this stuff to got through why not every other harmless liquid?

The silly woman should have read the rules beforehand.

GUWonder

They already allow harmless liquids to go through the screening checkpoint. And this ridiculous war on water and other "harmless" liquids needs to come to an end.

The means already exist (and are used) to detect contraband explosives -- including at LHR. And the obsession with prohibiting harmless liquids is not leading to better, more extensive ETD use; rather the hunt for harmless liquids diverts resources from better, more extensive use of ETD.

There is nothing silly about assuming that one's own bodily fluids are allowed at the checkpoints. Do you know what proportion of living human body mass consists of liquid?

Lets get real. The war on water and other harmless liquids can be waged in the same way that the war on shoes has been waged at LHR, all without leading to increased risk of explosives on my flights.

Any two or three people applying a reasonable amount of average intelligence can rather easily get 40 liters of water cleared at LHR and amassed airside. If someone thinks that the 3-1-1 kind of L/G/A rule is keeping us safe, then they are in the market to buy the Brooklyn Bridge connecting Manhattan with Brooklyn.

Worcester

You should have a little chat with my wife....

The chemical detection sensors are in fact very powerful as the periodic tales of demolition experts being questioned by airport police can testify. They can pick up even a few molecules of chemicals.

And I agree 14l is clearly an extreme amount and quite right the rules are very clear.

But the Israeli's who know a thing or two about airport security, do seem to have concerns about our obsession with bottles of water and our lack of attention to the actual travelers.

I boggles my mind that you can pass security with a 6cm blade.

ft101

Whether right or wrong, the rules are the rules. They're not kept secret, they apply to us all and playing by them makes it much more likely you'll have a trouble free trip.

This traveller never, and gets no sympathy from me. Her bleating on social media and playing the "you've deprived my child" card puts her in the TSTT (too stupid to travel) category.

Worcester

You should have a little chat with my wife....

The chemical detection sensors are in fact very powerful as the periodic tales of demolition experts being questioned by airport police can testify. They can pick up even a few molecules of chemicals.

And I agree 14l is clearly an extreme amount and quite right the rules are very clear. But strict adherence to the rules is part of the problem. Look at Formula 1, people who are motivated enough can get around the rules, subverting them even for their own ends.

But the Israeli's who know a thing or two about airport security, do seem to have concerns about our obsession with bottles of water and our lack of attention to the actual travelers.

I boggles my mind that you can pass security with a 6cm blade.