"Liquid explosive" damage on the BBC
Sep 11, 2009 | 12:35 pm
#61
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
You failed to answer my question:
So the question becomes one of risk/cost benefits regarding TSA funding/SOPs. What level of security is good enough to satisfy TSA?
Sep 11, 2009 | 12:41 pm
#62
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Whats your point?
Sep 11, 2009 | 12:50 pm
#64
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Sep 11, 2009 | 12:54 pm
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,956
In the Pam Am event I believe that the actors were not baggage handlers but higher ups who smuggled the weapon onto the aircraft.
Regardless, TSA in todays world has set up the ability for someone to insert a bomb into checked baggage after screening.
In my book that is a massive FAIL for TSA.
Sep 11, 2009 | 1:01 pm
#66
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,152
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka
The methods and procedures for detecting plastic explosives are pretty cut and dried. Liquids, well thats a different story.
The methods and procedures for detecting plastic explosives are pretty cut and dried. Liquids, well thats a different story.
There are no x-ray devices that will detect nitroglycerin - you're only hope is a random swab, which would be negative if the chemicals are packed and sealed in containers of 4oz or less.
Each mule can pack about 4 x 4oz containers of nitro in their 'Kippie Bag', and once airside, convene to transfer the smaller amounts into larger containers to be brought on board for detonation.
So exactly how would the TSA stop or detect such a plot? Please do tell.
Sep 11, 2009 | 1:02 pm
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,956
Quite true. But let me ask you, how much RF energy is floating around the average airport, or even the average neighborhood? Without paying detailed attention to shielding and frequency isolation, possible harmonic interference, and an entire host of other RF related issues, one is likely to be the center point in a premature detonation of a poorly constructed device.
That being said I also know that modern RC systems used by people who fly expensive remote controlled aircraft have excellent frequency discrimination. The newest equipment has very narrow frequency bands and are discreet enough to reject all other signals.
The receivers are very small, so small that they easily fit in a 2 meter glider with all servos and batteries needed for flight with room left over.
Now I don't know if a person who has a better understanding of these things could fashion a trigger for a weapon from them but I betting they could.
Sep 11, 2009 | 1:04 pm
#68
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
I'll be the first to admit that I am no expert on electronics.
That being said I also know that modern RC systems used by people who fly expensive remote controlled aircraft have excellent frequency discrimination. The newest equipment has very narrow frequency bands and are discreet enough to reject all other signals.
The receivers are very small, so small that they easily fit in a 2 meter glider with all servos and batteries needed for flight with room left over.
Now I don't know if a person who has a better understanding of these things could fashion a trigger for a weapon from them but I betting they could.
That being said I also know that modern RC systems used by people who fly expensive remote controlled aircraft have excellent frequency discrimination. The newest equipment has very narrow frequency bands and are discreet enough to reject all other signals.
The receivers are very small, so small that they easily fit in a 2 meter glider with all servos and batteries needed for flight with room left over.
Now I don't know if a person who has a better understanding of these things could fashion a trigger for a weapon from them but I betting they could.
Yes. That was one of the techniques used in Iraq by the bad guys making IEDs.
Sep 11, 2009 | 1:44 pm
#70
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
There are no x-ray devices that will detect nitroglycerin - you're only hope is a random swab, which would be negative if the chemicals are packed and sealed in containers of 4oz or less.
Each mule can pack about 4 x 4oz containers of nitro in their 'Kippie Bag', and once airside, convene to transfer the smaller amounts into larger containers to be brought on board for detonation.
So exactly how would the TSA stop or detect such a plot? Please do tell.
Each mule can pack about 4 x 4oz containers of nitro in their 'Kippie Bag', and once airside, convene to transfer the smaller amounts into larger containers to be brought on board for detonation.
So exactly how would the TSA stop or detect such a plot? Please do tell.
Sep 11, 2009 | 1:49 pm
#71
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,195
Heck, neither am I, but I am a licensed HAM operator, and all of these things are something HAM’s deal with on occasion.
Could be, I don’t have time for another hobby. I do know that if someone tries to bring a transmitter like those I have seen for RC through the checkpoint, there is a good chance it is going to be given additional screening. If the owner has been playing with explosives in the last few weeks it will never make it past the TSO's. Additionally, take one of those things out on board an aircraft and I’m fairly sure that once again your fellow passengers are going to say something. Then you get to deal with one of those pit-bull FA’s we all hear about.
That being said I also know that modern RC systems used by people who fly expensive remote controlled aircraft have excellent frequency discrimination. The newest equipment has very narrow frequency bands and are discreet enough to reject all other signals.
Sep 11, 2009 | 2:02 pm
#72
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Somewhere between Singapore and the US
Programs: Qantas Platinum, SQ Krisflyer PPS, UA 1p, Marriot Lifetime Platinum, American EXP
Posts: 989
Wikipedia as a definitive source?
Wiki's can and are done by anyone and there is no requirement that the information be accurate or true. While in a large number of cases it may very well be accurate, there are no guarantees. Just becasue it is on the Net does not make it true.
Stupid is very hard to kill.
Stupid is very hard to kill.
Sep 11, 2009 | 2:05 pm
#73
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 25
Years ago someone used some nitroglycerine to set off an explosion on board - it did not take down the aircraft or cause significant damage, except to a passenger and some seats.
Not exactly the threat it's been made out to be. How about plastic explosives? Why are you people so fascinated with liquids and shoes? Why do you ignore everything else and only insist on liquids and shoes?
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot201/
Not exactly the threat it's been made out to be. How about plastic explosives? Why are you people so fascinated with liquids and shoes? Why do you ignore everything else and only insist on liquids and shoes?
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/...skthepilot201/
Here, you can read about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp...nes_Flight_434
Sep 11, 2009 | 2:20 pm
#74
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: FrostByte Falls, Mn
Programs: Holiday Inn Plat NW gold AA gold
Posts: 2,157
Ok Ronnie,
It is called the law of diminishing returns where a significant improvement won't cost just another $1.00/passenger but instead $10 or $100 per passenger. You reach a point that the cost for additional security at any cost becomes prohibitively expensive for the benefits gained. Is it worth it to spend another $100,000,000,000 on something that would only possibly occur every once in 1000 years? What level of threat is acceptable to TSA management? When costs far outweigh the benefits then you've reached the point you're at today.
It is called the law of diminishing returns where a significant improvement won't cost just another $1.00/passenger but instead $10 or $100 per passenger. You reach a point that the cost for additional security at any cost becomes prohibitively expensive for the benefits gained. Is it worth it to spend another $100,000,000,000 on something that would only possibly occur every once in 1000 years? What level of threat is acceptable to TSA management? When costs far outweigh the benefits then you've reached the point you're at today.
Sep 11, 2009 | 2:23 pm
#75
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,956
Heck, neither am I, but I am a licensed HAM operator, and all of these things are something HAMs deal with on occasion.
Could be, I dont have time for another hobby. I do know that if someone tries to bring a transmitter like those I have seen for RC through the checkpoint, there is a good chance it is going to be given additional screening. If the owner has been playing with explosives in the last few weeks it will never make it past the TSO's. Additionally, take one of those things out on board an aircraft and Im fairly sure that once again your fellow passengers are going to say something. Then you get to deal with one of those pit-bull FAs we all hear about.
Could be, I dont have time for another hobby. I do know that if someone tries to bring a transmitter like those I have seen for RC through the checkpoint, there is a good chance it is going to be given additional screening. If the owner has been playing with explosives in the last few weeks it will never make it past the TSO's. Additionally, take one of those things out on board an aircraft and Im fairly sure that once again your fellow passengers are going to say something. Then you get to deal with one of those pit-bull FAs we all hear about.
If I understand the Pan Am event no transmitter was required and given that TSA does not screen everyone the door is open for someone to introduce a weapon to the flight line.