Why doesn't TSA allow you to dump out liquids?
Sep 16, 2016, 2:24 am
#31
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,042
Also what's to stop three or four guys from using their take on allowance and combing together? Its not like 9/11 happened with just one guy on each plane. Yet can't take liquid even if we're willing to swallow some.
Sep 16, 2016, 5:21 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,410
Yeah, it's a knee jerk reaction to the lone wolves that tried it. Think Al Qaeda wouldn't provide accomplices to carry parts through security??? The hard part is the suicide attacker.
Sep 18, 2016, 9:00 am
#33
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 962
As with everything else TSA does, this particular "loophole" in security has a tremendous flaw - instead of guzzling a liquid explosive and vomiting it later (which would likely blow the bomber to dog chow as his stomach acids interacted with the chemicals), the would-be Bad Guy could simply load up a condom with PETN or C4 or some other solid or powdered explosive, tie some dental floss to it, and swallow it.
(FWIW, I've read some of the scientific literature on electron spectroscopy detection of explosive traces, as part of gathering evidence for litigation. It's interesting stuff.)
Sep 18, 2016, 9:53 am
#34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
FWIW, ETD ought to catch that. It's unlikely that they'd have a sterile enough balloon-filling technique to not have any traces on the outside of the balloon (and thus everything it touches), clothes, hands, etc etc. TSA don't need a probe to detect; it if an ETD actually detects PETN or C4 traces, you can bet your ... that FBI will be up it (literally) within a couple hours.
(FWIW, I've read some of the scientific literature on electron spectroscopy detection of explosive traces, as part of gathering evidence for litigation. It's interesting stuff.)
(FWIW, I've read some of the scientific literature on electron spectroscopy detection of explosive traces, as part of gathering evidence for litigation. It's interesting stuff.)
Sep 18, 2016, 10:08 am
#35
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
They aren't going to catch it unless they swab.
If the swabs are in evidence at the checkpoint (for lots of folks, not just those pulled for a full secondary), the perp leaves. If not, s/he proceeds.
This may be related to the airports I fly from, but the majority if the time, the swabs are only used on folks who have alarmed or opted out (a highly suspicious activity, even if it's because the pax is physically incapable of using the NoS).
I think the odds of someone who has swallowed contraband (drugs or explosive) being caught by a random swab are pretty low.
The odds of the bad guy exhibiting blatant tell-tales symptoms of nervousness likely to attract the attention of a BDO otherwise occupied with personal chitchat with fellow TSOs and his/her cellphone is pretty slim.
If the swabs are in evidence at the checkpoint (for lots of folks, not just those pulled for a full secondary), the perp leaves. If not, s/he proceeds.
This may be related to the airports I fly from, but the majority if the time, the swabs are only used on folks who have alarmed or opted out (a highly suspicious activity, even if it's because the pax is physically incapable of using the NoS).
I think the odds of someone who has swallowed contraband (drugs or explosive) being caught by a random swab are pretty low.
The odds of the bad guy exhibiting blatant tell-tales symptoms of nervousness likely to attract the attention of a BDO otherwise occupied with personal chitchat with fellow TSOs and his/her cellphone is pretty slim.
Sep 18, 2016, 12:33 pm
#38
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,526
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...errorists.html
Theresa May will use her first visit to the United Nations this week to lead calls for a tightening in airport security around the world, which could lead to wider restrictions on the liquids that can be taken on aircraft.
Sep 18, 2016, 2:37 pm
#39
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,042
Sep 18, 2016, 2:55 pm
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
May and her games. She messed up U.K. airports enough, and now she wants to mess up the rest of those not doing the L/G/A-in-small-plastic-bag thing. Why? Perhaps in hopes that it would make LHR "more competitive" by having more countries lower themselves to a worse enough common denominator to make LHR look good again.
Sep 21, 2016, 8:22 pm
#41
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: 1 thousand
Posts: 2,112
Only slightly relevant here, but ZRH is the one airport I've been to that does have a liquids emptying station just before security. It's located just after the BP check (automated gates that check that you have a valid BP), and just before the queues for actual security (i.e. before the tensabarriers in front of the x-rays/wtmd's).
IIRC there's also a recycling bin, and a stand with plastic bags ("freedom-baggies") there, with plenty of space to repack as needed. Possibly the most pleasant security experience I've had, with the exception of New Zealand (no liquid ban on the domestic jets, no security whatsoever on the turboprops).
IIRC there's also a recycling bin, and a stand with plastic bags ("freedom-baggies") there, with plenty of space to repack as needed. Possibly the most pleasant security experience I've had, with the exception of New Zealand (no liquid ban on the domestic jets, no security whatsoever on the turboprops).