This, from the same poster who gave us "There are exceptions but they are the exceptions."

I think they should stick to the important things like bottles of water and eau-de-cologne - that's where the real danger lies.

Don't allow? That is totally unworkable. Besides the roads that loop around almost all our airports, there are parking garages which have line of sight to antennas, and public roads off airport property which could be used as bases to jam the receivers onboard.

Sorry, but a reactionary 'just ban everything' approach to security is neither workable, nor prudent.

Risk management is key....anyway, why get so bent over this scenario while cargo remains unscreened and through-the-fence employees are not screened, nor are their facilities really sterile.

We have bigger fish to fry than chase pie in the sky scenarios.

A lot gets thru. Wouldn't surprise me to see a box cutter get thru. People get pocket knives thru all the time.

Maybe. But those also emit RF which runs contrary to the very thing you're trying to protect against. Can't have it both ways.

The one you seemed to advocate.

But you also have to look at the big picture and look at it statistically. Statistically speaking, you're looking at a nonthreat. I don't think you could really justify it as it would cost significantly more to protect against the "threat" then the damage that would be caused if the threat were realized.

If the shoe fits ... ;)

Stand corrected.

I disagree. The vowed intent of the jihadists is to eradicate Israel. The US is a target because we support Israel and muck in the politics of the Middle East (and elsewhere in the world).

America is not the only target of jihadists. I don't think terrorists necessarily care who they kill, just as long as they can cause a lot of terror with a little bit of resources. If they hit Americans, so much the better.

You shouldn't overestimate either.

It's not that hard to grasp what those words mean. Do I need to spell it out for you?

Come on, the comic books say it's possible. So this must be the biggest fish in the sea to catch. :D

I've thought of several ways to create mayhem but I'm not going to give people ideas. I hate it when they do it to planes. They should double the penalty for terrorist attacks against planes and airports.....kill them 2 times over.

I can think of more frightening scenarios than that.

With all the problems surrounding electronics on planes, I would like to think that many of the issues you have, have been discussed during aircraft design.

So can I - without even working at it. But this one is fairly cheap to enforce.

I would like to think so, too. But aircraft engineers of every stripe - airframe, powerplant, and avionics - have that old weight constraint line in their linear models. They do everything they know how to about imaginable scenarios (including lightning), but my guess would be that extraordinary amounts of RF noise directed at electronics are outside of their box - and weight limit. Cf. the architectural engineers who designed the Twin Towers.

:D And level all the hotels off the approach end of a runway. ^

A favorite text of beginning martial arts students.

A pity he failed to anticipate copyright laws. :p

This is the kind of thinking that the NTSB typically highlights as an early link in an accident chain.

The glideslope transmitter is 1,000 feet down the runway from the threshold, and the localizer transmitter is at its far end. Equipment powerful enough to disrupt the ILS at that range wouldn't even fit in a hotel room, much less be carried there in a suitcase. Anyway, waiting for instrument conditions that would make the landing phase vulnerable could be very tedious - and many airports never have Cat II, much less Cat III weather.

But if a laptop-sized RF broadband noise generator were located a few feet from a critical harness of aircraft wiring, who knows what havoc could be wrought?