Wally Bird

Possibly, but we DO need to get the word out that BAA has nothing at all to do with security policy decisions in the UK. It's the Department for Transport (DfT) over there that is (roughly) equivalent to the TSA.

Despite the 'authority' bit in its name, BAA simply runs the airports and yes, implements whatever security is mandated by the DfT.

justageek

Yes, my bad for conflating the two.

exerda

The current bans are so full of contradictions and loopholes that to think they make us safer at all is questionable reasoning at best. If the tests taken to arrive at the current policy is considered "extensive," it really calls into question for me the skills and intelligence and thinking of those arranging, conducting, and interpreting the tests.

I can think of countless ways to still get a bomb onto a plane, with enough explosives to bring one down and requiring only one person to do so (although if I was the one doing operational planning, I'd opt for two so as to have a backup in case one doesn't make it onboard with everything intact). If I--someone simply with a small degree of explosives knowledge and a fair amount of imagination--can come up with several such scenarios, then surely practiced terrorists can as well.

MSY-MSP

Now feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that DfT makes the baseline rules and then leaves it to BAA (and other operators) to implement them. The DfT does not prevent BAA from instituting stricter rules for the airports that it runs. For example, I do not believe that London Luton or London City airports have the same restrictions in effect that the BAA run airports do. (vis a vis allowed liquids). I think the primary issue is that BAA runs the checkpoints and can allow less than the DfT allows, but not more.

Wally Bird

Yep, all UK airports: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ut_612280.hcsp

The BAA does indeed implement the rules, and there is a wide feeling that the implementation of the recent changes was a c*ck-up (as the Brits say). To wit, this quote from the head of BAA seems to make it clear who is responsible; and what the BAA actually thinks of it.

MSY-MSP

True, but then why do BAA limit the esential medications to 50mL and the other airports (LTN) not place such a volume limiation on the essential medications. The 50mL limit is essentailly 3Tbsp of liquid or 1.5 doses of pepto bismol. (which will do you a lot of good on a 20 hour flight) Further, I didn't see on the DfT page a ban on liquids of flights to the US. This seems to me to be a BAA ban, which the DfT page indicates that different airports can have different rules.
Thus I think that for purposes of the liquid ban and luggage limitations I think the policies may be both DfT and BAA, as BAA can implement whatever it wants that is more restrictive.

The statement from the BAA guy makes sense on this as well. He has been stated somewhere else saying that "relaxation" of the ban such as the method in the US woudl make the checkpoint much more confusing. Thus BAA are going to stay with a ban as it is easier to enforce than the other approaches. BAA have also said that if they were going to allow liquids past the checkpoint in limited amounts, they were demanding relief in other areas. So to me what it is saying is that BAA are willing to allow limited liquids if they get a relief elsewhere, otherwise they are going with an all or nothing policy.

red456

The article that is the subject of this thread states:

However, the TSA says in this memo,

http://www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/special_needs_memo.pdf

"Since the initial total ban on liquids, gels and aerosols took effect on August 10, we have learned enough from the UK investigation to say with confidence that small, travel size liquids are safe to brign through security checkpoints in limited numbers..."

Did all the testing referred to in the NY Times article really take place? I wonder what history will have to say about all of this stupidity.

DENchick

I love the picture of a bunch of government agents out in the desert, blowing up toothpaste.

exerda

I wonder if they evaluated what volume of various nerve agents would cause issues, too? I would suspect even toiletry-sized bottles of sarin would be dangerous to a plane. And we had plenty of posters defending the TSA early-on after 8/10, claiming terrorists might make chlorine gas via mixing household chemicals (which, IME, doesn't even require liquids be brought onboard--several pool tablets + an acidic beverage from the plane's normal service would do the same) These threats still exist, and IMHO are at least as dangerous if not far moreso than liquid explosives, yet nothing is done to address them.

Wally Bird

For six weeks no less, we are to believe. Maybe it took them that long to actually get something to go bang.

MikeMpls

I feel so much safer now that Homeland "Security" has done the R & D for the terrorists.

Constraint #1: You'll probably need two quarts.

As I recall, McVeigh & Nichols practiced out in the desert, too.

MSY-MSP

Actually, it seems like from the EU FAQ's page you are probably close on the total size, as they have figured that over half the volume of the bag is wasted by the bottles and they assume that the groups will work together. Based on my assumption that they work in 4-5 person teams they would need over 4 quart bags that are 50% air to achieve this goal. That and they still need a large container to mix it in, which at least in the EU has been banned. (unless you can mix it in a 1.5 liter bottle of water)

GUWonder

It doesn't require 4-5 persons to get airside; 1-2 persons is sufficient. And larger containers can be procured or assembled airside or even in-flight.

These rules are really idiotic ... based on the assumption of idiocy, relied upon by idiots-in-practice. Government incompetence is a key part of the dog and pony show.

MikeMpls

How about an inflatable travel neck pillow? Should be able to get a couple quarts in one of them.

They'll be banned, just watch!