CessnaJock

One would like to hope so - but you don't get and keep a job in government with outside-the-box thinking. These guys are too busy neutralizing the last threat than thinking up new ones.

I have been writing to every agency I can think of - FBI, TSA, FAA... - to get them to at least consider the fact that enough plastique to demolish an airliner will fit in the spare battery compartment on some laptops. The machine could boot up fine and dandy (which is their sole criterion for a safe machine), but still be packed with Semtex, which has the same physical and X-ray density as a battery. The vapor signature could be neutralized with a Seal-a-Meal and scrupulous cleaning.

FWAAA

If there was a shred of credible evidence of reality-based danger (as opposed to comic-book style fantasy danger), I'm confident that the risk avoidance-practicing ninnies at the various federal agencies would simply ban the carrying of electronic devices. Simply ban them at the checkpoint. On top of that, those with the most to lose (the airlines themselves) would ban the devices (or convince the government to ban them) if there was any possibility of reality-based danger.

That no one has moved in that directions tells me just about all there is on this topic.

After all, the worthless cowards banned the carrying of water thru the checkpoints in August, 2006, so bans on non-dangerous items are nothing new for these cowards.

Even if there really is some reality-based danger here (and not just fantasy), the danger appears remote enough to simply not worry about. Unless you're in the business of selling fear and paranoia. Not all of us are.

GUWonder

So you say. But it's not always the case.

.... and there are those who make a living getting the government to pay up for even overpriced hare-brained projects -- definitely "outside-the-box" -- something the DoD has a history of paying for as well.

Even comic book-worthy "risks" can get the government to jump -- water-filled bottles included.

Global_Hi_Flyer

Most of those outlets are current and power limited. And a lot of planes don't have 'em at all. And the flight deck can disable them easily.

Further, even where high-tension power lines have cracked insulators, causing sparking, the interference is relatively confined and low enough relative to a desired signal in a narrow-band receiver that it's a non-issue in most cases. It really does take a pretty high powered signal on-frequency to overcome the desired signal.

even if you get past the technical issues, you aren't going to be able to pull-off a spark gap on an airliner without somebody else noticing really fast. And you sure aren't going to be able to provide one in a checked bag in the cargo hold with a sustained power source.

I'm not in agreement that it's easy to incapacitate an airliner from the inside. Possible? Remote, but potentially possible with the right equipment, enough time, and plenty of available energy. Likely? No. And highly unlikely for aircraft that are hydraulic or not "fly by wire". More likely? That certain specific systems are affected.

You are aware, I'm sure, that there are EMI rejection standards for most modern aircraft, especially the ones that are fly-by-wire. And that the US Military flys aircraft with high-powered transmitting (propaganda - er truth - broadcasts) and jamming equipment on-board.

In applying the inverse-square law, you also have to consider that power is averaged across the spectrum in which the noise is generated - wider bandwidth, lower power. And a narrow-band receiver rejects a lot of the out-of-band noise. So a broadband-jamming signal will require a lot of power to effectively jam things. Narrow-band jammers are more effective on specific equipment (say a specific ILS frequency) because the power is concentrated in the appropriate bandwidth. Digital systems use error-correction and coding schemes that overcome random noise and interference.

The likelihood of your scenario being successful is slim to none. As noted before, a shoulder-fired rocket will be far, far more likely. And much easier.

exerda

Except these days, it's DHS doing the handouts.

jwillett13

Why do you think laptops where required to be removed and scanned separately prior to 9/11. I think demolish is too strong of a word, more like make a large hole causing rapid depressurization and possibly damaging flight controls. Don't believe all the Hollywood movie fantasy hype.

Spiff

Thank you for posting this comment so early in this thread. Since boxcutters didn't cause 9/11, I can skip any additional "theories".

CessnaJock

I'm having a little trouble following your post. Laptops weren't removed and scanned separately prior to 9/11 - but the screeners did ask them to be removed from luggage and booted up. I've never had the second battery compartment on a Sony Vaio opened for inspection - whether it was full or empty.

Demolish is the right word, because the overpressure resulting from the detonation would cause the fuselage to unzip along rivet lines - think TWA800 - and then aerodynamic forces would rip asunder any surviving airframe.

CessnaJock

"FIGHTING IGNORANCE SINCE 1973
(IT'S TAKING LONGER THAN WE THOUGHT)"

GUWonder

Apparently not.

Let me help lift out of ignorance those who need help.

is not a possibility except in comic book-type fantasy.

Is there a box cutter that can take down buildings or seriously damage the Pentagon? Maybe in the comic books.

In the real world, planes damaged those buildings; "box cutters" didn't damage the buildings.

exerda

But even a contact lens solution bottle full of nitroglycerine didn't demolish an entire plane when detonated in-flight (it killed the occupant of the seat over the bomb and injured a few others). Granted that Yousef didn't place the bomb against the fuselage--he was trying for the fuel tanks--but that's still a lot of explosives to detonate without damaging the fuselage at all.

I suspect an overpressure followed by a decompression would only cause catastropic airframe failure in exceptional cases and would not be the outcome terrorists could count on.

Wally Bird

Just stick to your Cessna, Boeings are a bit more robust.

Teacher49

It is one thing to account for worst case in one's thinking and quite another to live as though the worst case is certain and immanent.

I've posted it here before, but here a quote from a person who had every reason to live a life of fear, and who puts to shame those who live in fear and yet call themselves "jocks" of one sort or another:

erictank

Are you referring to the detonation of tons of high-explosive which have basically been deposited into a spent-fuel pool? Because, other than that, just about nothing could cause such an incident at the plant that I worked in before moving a year and a half ago. You can't accurately hit such a small target (the pool) with a large passenger/cargo plane loaded with the appropriate explosives; you can't load a Cessna with enough to do the job. Outside of that, pretty much everything is isolable, for near-to-absolutely-zero-release capability. The vast majority of the rest of the really dangerous (radioactive) stuff is inside the several-feet-thick containment structures. You can hit those with an airliner and you'll shut the plant down on seismic shock - but the attack will basically just crack and spall some concrete, maybe tear up some outer-layer rebar.

I won't presume to speak for ALL US nuclear plants - but the threat you propose does not appear to be a credible one at the plant I worked at.

You got a mad on for nuke plants, or what? Or is it that you just fear what you don't understand?

stupidhead

"Those who give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary security deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin-

The biggest threat to air safety today is the retarded government officials who are too retarded to think outside the box. If liquids were really a threat, then they wouldn't be throwing thousands of bottles in a plastic bin. These plastic bins will probably turn into liquid on a hot day in Phoenix, Arizona.

And yes, the worst case scenario is if Kip Hawley is elected president. Have you seen the 9/11 reports? Port security-D, Airport security-F, and several other sub-D grades. If I were running a company and anyone gets any rating less than an A- I'll have their ... fired before the end of the day. Why aren't we demanding the same kind of excellence from our government officials?