Looks bad for spotters/enthusiasts

[Pieter C. 5]

Read these two articles, guys: quite worrying

 

August 11, 2006

Draconian restrictions on carry-on baggage may stay in place for months, even years, after British authorities thwarted a suspected plot to blow up planes in mid-air using liquid explosives, security analysts said.

 

This week's critical alerts in both Britain and the United States caused massive disruption to air travelers and highlighted the need to invest in new airport checkpoint technology to screen passengers and hand luggage for explosives.

 

"Quite frankly, metal detectors and X-ray don't cut it," said Chris Yates, aviation security expert at Jane's information group.

 

"We need to invest. We need to get money into the checkpoint. We need to reassess how we do it... Perhaps this is the final wake-up call to actually shake the decision makers from their lethargy."

 

US authorities have banned travelers from carrying liquids and other gel-based products onto planes, a step also taken by some Asian airlines on Friday for flights to Britain and the United States. British airports went further by banning hand luggage altogether and insisted even baby milk be tasted by an accompanying adult before being allowed on board.

 

An al Qaeda plot to blow up airliners with liquid explosives was uncovered as far back as 1995, but authorities have never previously banned the carrying of fluids onto planes.

 

That could change, perhaps for good, with the uncovering of this week's suspected Islamist militant plot to blow up planes with chemical bombs disguised as drinks.

 

Though police have given no further details, security analysts said there were indications they were concerned about militants setting off a liquid explosive such as nitroglycerin with some form of non-metal detonator, or combining otherwise harmless liquids on board a plane to produce an explosive mix.

 

"I fully expect... for the next 20 years nobody will be able to take their can of Dr Pepper on a plane. I fully expect this to be a new regulation of international travel and perhaps even domestic flights," said British security analyst Sebestyen Gorka.

 

Current airport security typically involves a five-layered process of screening checked-in luggage, with multiple X-rays and CT scans.

 

That is too unwieldy and time-consuming to apply to passengers and their hand luggage. Instead travelers pass through a metal detector gateway and their bags through an X-ray machine, with a random sample also checked for explosives residue using trace particle detectors.

 

What would it take to be able to check all passengers and bags for explosives?

 

"It's something which I would imagine could only be solved with either sniffer dogs or electronic sniffers and hand searching. It's a very significant undertaking to do that at somewhere like Heathrow Airport," said David Claridge, managing director of Janusian Security Risk Management in London.

 

Jane's analyst Yates said new technology is becoming available, such as quadrupole resonance scanning developed by Australian-based QR Sciences, which uses radio waves to stimulate certain atoms such as nitrogen, present in explosives.

Its scanner, with a traffic-light display to indicate all-clear, further investigation or danger, has already been trialled internationally, including at Manchester Airport.

 

Rolling out such technology universally would require time and a huge reallocation of investment which until now has gone into other areas, such as deployment of sky marshals on planes.

 

In the meantime, Yates said he expected the current restrictions on hand baggage to continue, at least for flights into and out of Britain, possibly for months.

 

He said a permanent ban on hand luggage would be untenable, not least because of the risk of theft from luggage carousels.

 

But not everyone rules out such radical solutions.

 

"I reckon the days of carry-on luggage are gone," said Maxim Worcester, managing director of Control Risks consultancy in Germany. "It's the easiest way of solving the problem, isn't it?"

 

(Reuters)

 

and this one.....

 

August 11, 2006

Tighter airport security from this week will force Europe's low-cost airlines to rethink baggage and check-in policies and may inconvenience travelers enough to deter them from jetting off on weekend breaks.

 

Airlines banned hand luggage on all flights out of the United Kingdom on Thursday, causing chaos at airports as security was stepped up following a foiled plan to bomb transatlantic planes.

 

Analysts said the new rules might undermine a recent push by low-cost carriers Ryanair and easyJet to reduce costs by encouraging passengers to bring only hand luggage onto planes and check in online.

 

Travelers also may decide to stay at home if air travel becomes more inconvenient, particularly at London's congested airports.

 

"If this hand baggage policy stays in place for a long time, will that affect the way people think about a quick weekend break because suddenly it becomes more of a hassle?" Exane BNP Paribas airline analyst Geoff van Klaveren asked.

 

"EasyJet and Ryanair have made fantastic strides over the past year to make travel less of a hassle with online check-in and hand luggage. Suddenly if you have a two-hour check-in process, it makes you think twice."

Higher airport costs may be partly offset by increased sales of in-flight drinks and snacks. Passengers are banned from bringing liquids on board under the security measures.

 

"Ideally, a gradual relaxation (of security) starts, with liquids likely to be banned for some time on boarding. If so, higher on-board drink sales need to be accommodated," Goodbody Stockbrokers analyst Joe Gill said.

 

A Ryanair spokeswoman said it had no plans to change its baggage policy, because it was unclear how long the ban on hand luggage would be imposed. It was relaxing luggage charges for the time being.

 

Ryanair wants to halve airport queues and shave EUR30 million euros (USD$38.3 million) off costs by getting passengers to check in online and bring only hand luggage. The airline introduced charges of up to GBP5 (USD$9.50) for check-in baggage earlier this year.

 

Rival easyJet removed weight restrictions on its hand luggage last year.

 

Low-cost flights have tight turnaround times and rely on getting passengers on flights fast to maintain schedules.

 

"This will raise the cost of baggage handling and slow down the turnaround time for the plane as well," said analyst Chris Tarry at UK-based aviation consultancy CTaira.

 

Flight schedules began returning to normal on Friday after mass cancellations on Thursday, but airlines warned of delays.

 

Authorities banned liquids and gels from bags being carried on to aircraft, and travelers with babies were forced to taste their baby food before boarding.

 

Airport operator BAA said the new security measures were in place indefinitely, although analysts expect them to be gradually wound back.

 

Analysts said they did not expect the fear of an attack to deter travelers in the longer term. There was a minimal impact on travel following bombings on London's transport system in July last year.

 

(Reuters)

 

 

[Edwin P K 0]

For the sake of security, I think this move is lauded, unless they have found a really good way of screening items that are brought on board. I would rather not take any pics than risk the life of many people...

 

However, they must ensure that items checked in will be handled with care, the last thing I want to happen is my camera/laptop checked in are being chucked here and there...who is responsible then when item is damaged?

Edited August 12, 2006 by Edwin P K

[Sing Yew 1]

However, they must ensure that items checked in will be handled with care, the last thing I want to happen is my camera/laptop checked in are being chucked here and there...who is responsible then when item is damaged?

 

Or when the item is pilfered.

[Seth K 3]

May be we laugh and annoy with this security, but again, they try the best to avoid the unthinkable that might happen, have you think what happen if ur in a hijack plane, I'm sure then you will blame the security checkpoint for letting those hijacker onboard For me, I don't care if it's getting harder to fly, but at least I feel safer inside that tube

[Kevin Teh 0]

that'll sounds even worst... if KUL is to implement as well.... let's see if this will be "Permanent rules"....

 

terrorism.... <_>

Edited August 12, 2006 by Kevin Teh

[Y. J. Foo 0]

Darn those terrorists!!!

 

They are FULLY RESPONSIBLE for the demise of the good-old-day of the aviation!!!

 

But we can't do anything about them...if we want to stay alive then there may be no other options left...

[Seth K 3]

that'll sounds even worst... if KUL is to implement as well.... let's see if this will be "Permanent rules"....

KUL stated that pax to UK and US will be double check....that's what I heard, guess, we will not see inflight photos soon

[Tony 1]

With all these rules/policies in place, the question is, IS IT REALLY SAFER? More to that, does the travelling public FEEL safer?

 

All the security measures now are technically one-way: restricting freedom of assengers. No feedback whatsoever. So, do they really work?? This is perhaps something we (and the authorities) should be thinking about. Otherwise, the next step would be security guards feeding you sleeping pills whilst you board your flight, and you'll be unconscious throughout the flight, just in case you try to hijack or blow up the plane!

Edited August 13, 2006 by Tony

[Seth K 3]

Tony, I reallly like the idea, hope none from the TSA read that

There is no better way of flying now, problem here and there, better sceeners and such never will be good enough, those terrorist is not stupid, they figure stuff out! If the powerful leader make some sort of agreement with the militants group like "we don't disturb you and you not too", I'm sure it will be safe again.

 

2 cent applied

[Radzi 2]

First there were explosives in check-in luggages. Now they have liquid explosives in carry-on baggages.

 

Shudder to think what will happen when someone invented a cloth-shaped explosive. Then whatever we wear will be suspect....

[Imran K. 0]

Shudder to think what will happen when someone invented a cloth-shaped explosive. Then whatever we wear will be suspect....

 

I can definitely foresee urine checks in the States and the UK...

 

[Teoh Z Yao 0]

No, we certainly don't wanna be flying in the middle of the journey up there at a couple tens of thousand feet inside a narrow tube threatened by an impending explosion!

 

Tighter security would mean less possibility or more impossibility to have access into the dream place of many aviation enthusiasts, a pretty small room called the cock's pit .

 

Nevertheless, that's the reality. When there is danger threat, security must go up at red alert. Neither of us want to be inside a about-to-blow a/c huh...

[Woei Shen 0]

Hmm.. so, no hand luggage for flight going into LHR as well? Gosh, I might be going there this Sept, no extra check-in luggage weight allowance?

[Edwin P K 0]

Hopefully by September things probably be business as usual...I hope

 

Now they are saying 1 hand luggage of the size of laptop is permited. Electrical devices are OK, but still no liquid.

 

 

[Seth K 3]

Next thing we know, it's a crime to look up at the sky <_>

[Robert 0]

Next thing we know, it's a crime to look up at the sky <_>

 

If liquid is banned long term ticket proices will rise because airports will need to make up fro lack of revenue from duty free.

 

regardless of class I travel I always take at least one bottle of water on board. I prefer to buy my bottles at the supermarket rather they at the airport due to price.

 

I forsee PAX being ripped off by airports and airlines over the cost of drinks

[Seth K 3]

regardless of class I travel I always take at least one bottle of water on board. I prefer to buy my bottles at the supermarket rather they at the airport due to price.

Yupp, it's just a culture to bring water bottle onboard. With the liquid scare, is the LSG Skychef etc. also will have sceeners to scan the inflight-meals for futher security

[Radzi 2]

perhaps i should mention that there are explosives that resemble fluor and can even be used to bake a cake. completely edible. highly inert unless there is a trigger mechanism. perhaps they should ban food in all forms now. cake or bread bombs. ignore the second last sentence.

 

On ground, suicide bomber eat explosive cake. On board suicide bomber eat food-like detonator. Aircraft explode.

[Ricky Tiong 0]

Next thing we know, it's a crime to look up at the sky

 

So much for Emirate's bunch of red bellies then.

[Tony 1]

Next thing we know, it's a crime to look up at the sky <_>

Hehe~ Yeah, look up the sky and you'll be arrested and interrogated. "Were you looking at where best to shoot down da plane?? Were you? Were you?"