EU to adopt 150ml max for liquids
 

In the Euro WSJ this weekend there is an article saying that it is likely that the EU will try to adopt rules in line with the US and UK for liquids and gels. Thankfully Ms. Francoise Humbert, of the Association of European Airlines said that an outright ban would be totally unrealistic. But she did say they would accept a 150ml maximum for onboard items which would allow small toothepaste and deoderants, etc. More technical discussions on the topic will happen next week.

Separately they agreed on a new EU-wide requirement for all laptops to be removed at the checkpoint for scanning.

These recommendations would then have to be adotped into law by the EC.

Interesting.

Is that a combined total volume of 150ml or is that no single container with liquid/gel that exceeds 150ml (i.e., three or four items of less than 150ml each that in aggregate amount to say 300 ml)?

I can't believe we are relegated to asking questions such as this nowadays. :(

Also, it increasingly seems like the British (along with the American) government are going to manage to see the other EU member airports come down to the lowest common denominator of airport security stupidity. :(

Name me a mainstream newspaper that gives you that kind of detail these days. They are no longer about giving you the information that you really need.

Next, find a US customs agent that knows what a milliliter is.

Truly pathetic - it seems that as GUWonder puts it - the US and UK managed to get the EU down to lowest level of ambition. So I am allowed to take my lap top filled with batteries and electronics, I can drink wine from glass bottles in the front cabins, eat with real cuttlery (well not on US airlines), etc. What is next: Shoes without laces and no ties to be worn. I guess the Homeland Security guess must be happy - the world bought into the stupidity. :td:

What's next is that we will continue to sacrifice our liberties (that so many died for) to gain temporary illusory security. As such, we shall have neither and deserve neither.

Well, that sure shows that they are independent and aren't American's lap dogs. That's 5 ounces, a full 20% more than the TSA permits.

Bravo!

Not to defend... nor attack... this new "rule", nor "concession" to the recent "rules" of 8/10...

...but if I were a suicidal terrorist, bent on preparing an improvised explosive from two "binary" organic chemicals, I would say that this means...

...everything is just about as wide open for that scenario, as pre 8/10...

If there is going to be the view that the _contents_ of this 150 ml bottle (or bottles) need not be examined.

For one thing, it would scarcely be a problem to have ten accomplices each carry 150 ml of acetone (nail polish remover - - don't even need to disguise it). Will they allow an empty one liter bottle to be carried through security? And even if no... there are bottles of vodka sold in the shops on the concourse, right? Easy enough to empty (one, or several... of) those.

I don't think I have to spell out the rest of this scenario, in detail...

Careful screening at boarding on the aircraft would be a _relatively_ good defense against this, I guess...

But focusing on the _item(s)_ - - ANY items, way misses the mark, as I see it. It's the bearer that has to be (background?) screened, far more than what s/he is carrying.

I know that any approach means compromise of freedoms. What background screening is appropriate for a 17 year-old, who has never flown before, never had a credit card, nor a driver's license - - and headed off to college in another country? - - or at least that's what the documents claim...

The reality is that these liquid bans are pointless when the plotters infiltrate the airport staff (as the London plotters did.) You construct an elaborate scenario, but the London plotters would have not needed to do so because they had infiltrated the Heathrow ground staff. Easiest way to get something on the plane is via the catering truck.

Instead of searching a business executive or a family on their way to Disney World for nail polish remover, perhaps we should focus profiling Middle Eastern passengers and carefully monitoring (again, through background checks and profiling) of the airport staff.

I understand what you're attempting to express, stimpy. I really do.

But to be utterly contrary, I'm not part of that "we" referred to above. I have not and refused to be "Borg-ed" or collectivized as a individual undeserving of security in my person and property or my liberty.

Excellent point.

'nuther too true and excellent point. :(

What is stupid about trying to plug a security hole? Do you want to be on a plane where a ROP'er has smeared sterno all over the inside of the loo and lit it on fire?

I can't remember who bailed first on the EU constitution, but what page did it say that there was a basic human right to carry your toothpaste on the plane?

Racist profiling is a bad idea. And profiling will just open up windows for exploitation. And exploitation is exactly what will happen.

And about your claim of "the London plotters" infiltrating Heathrow ground staff, that's no less than a wee bit misleading. For one, the 1 person working at LHR who was "involved" with "the London plotters" was released (i.e., not charged); and the LHR worker certainly was not instrumental with regards to the plot.

The current measures don't plug any security holes. I saw circumvention earlier this week. It'll take a really stupid terrorist or a miraculously luck airport "security" employee for liquids/gels not to get through the US and EU airports.

I didn't miss the typical muslim-bashing (i.e., "ROP" comment) in the above post. Why am I not surprised that it's here yet again.

Folks, you know this has nothing to do with security, right?

I mean I have loads of liquids in my body, right? Anyone heard of suicide bombers? Or if you don't want to kill yourself, just ship your dog on the plane, put some thin ballons with the right stuff inside his stomach, timed to mix after takeoff.

Not to mention the fact that you could bomb a crowded sports event, concert, train, bus, etc., etc. Yet we don't have any liquid restrictions on those places. Why is that? Hmm?

Unless you stay away from North America and Europe forever, then yes you are part of the "we". I don't support these horrible policies either, but I'm still a legal citizen able to vote and express myself. You can't separate yourself from humanity if you still live amongst them.

Your scenario still requires there to be a binary explosive that can be created fairly quickly in a non-lab environment. So far all the chemistry I have heard about post 8/10 has indicated that mixing these things with a fairly high probability of success (success = getting enough explosive to blow up a plane instead of just burning off your own face) at a minimum would require much longer than someone could sit in a lav without drawing attention, would require copius amounts of ice to keep the reactants cooled, and would generate a noxious smell that would attract attention of passengers/FAs.

And pre-mixed liquid explosives (e.g., nitroglycerine) are so notoriously unstable that in large enough quantities they would be likely to blow up in the carry-on bag well before the bad guy ever reached the plane. Not to mention the fact that existing ETD and puffer technology can detect them (and does in fact detect them in heart patients daily).

Notice the conspicuous absense of government sponsored demonstrations of the potential threat. If it were a realistic threat, don't you think they'd make a nice video of someone quickly mixing to harmless-looking flasks and then placing them next to a harmless looking cell-phone before exploding a nice simulated aircraft cabin?

I am still not convinced that the "liquid threat" is credible outside minds of the paranoid risk-averse nervous nelies making decisions in the TSA. And if the bad guys have someone on the inside in the airport, none of the passenger restrictions matter, because the inside guy can just give the terrorists whatever they want including much safer explosives like dynamite and C4.

TSA: reprogram your ETD machines to detect these so called explosive precursors, screen liquids/containers instead of banning them and encouraging thousands of travelers to smuggle them anyway, and let us get on with our lives!