Airport security 100ml restriction to be scrapped

[brad465]

Coming in 2024, this couldn't come soon enough. I'm probably going to get some stick for saying this, but I think a large amount of security that has been brought in has been giving into terrorists, even where failed plots led to security practices being intensified. I'm not saying their should be nothing at all, standard bag searches and cockpit doors being secure seem like no brainers, but everything else should have been a proactive strong counter-terrorism force working behind the scenes to foil plots, as they often do now:

Airport security 100ml liquid rule to be scrapped

Restrictions on liquids and removing electrical items from bags are to be axed by June 2024.

www.bbc.co.uk

Some security rules on liquids and items such as laptops in airport hand luggage will be scrapped in 2024.
The government has set a deadline of June 2024 for most UK airports to install new high-tech 3D scanners, that show more detailed images of baggage.
The changes will see the 100ml liquid rule increased to two litres and mean passengers won't need to remove electrical items from bags at security.
A previous installation deadline was pushed back due to the pandemic.
Passengers are currently required to remove items such as tablets, laptops and liquids from their hand luggage while going through security checks at airports.
Liquids, such as sun cream, shampoo or toothpaste are required to be 100ml and must be in a clear plastic bag.
The limits have been in place since November 2006 and their introduction marked the end of a ban on liquids in the cabin imposed three months earlier, when British police said they had foiled a plot to blow up as many as 10 planes using explosives hidden in drinks bottles.

 

[Simon11]

Already in place at Heathrow T2 a month back and so much less hassle! Not sure why it takes so long to implement these scanners once it has been agreed safety and security is still protected.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Not sure why it takes so long to implement these scanners once it has been agreed safety and security is still protected.

Well they have to get enough of them first. I imagine most of the major terminals will be sorted before the June 2024 date.

 

[heathrowrail]

Coming in 2024, this couldn't come soon enough. I'm probably going to get some stick for saying this, but I think a large amount of security that has been brought in has been giving into terrorists, even where failed plots led to security practices being intensified. I'm not saying their should be nothing at all, standard bag searches and cockpit doors being secure seem like no brainers, but everything else should have been a proactive strong counter-terrorism force working behind the scenes to foil plots, as they often do now:

Airport security 100ml liquid rule to be scrapped

Restrictions on liquids and removing electrical items from bags are to be axed by June 2024.

www.bbc.co.uk

Aviation is a high worth terrorist target, terrorist attacks tend to put people off flying which is bad for business. That's why these rules were implemented.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Aviation is a high worth terrorist target, terrorist attacks tend to put people off flying which is bad for business. That's why these rules were implemented.

A test was done in the states where more often than not the simulated 'threats' got through scot free.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Aviation is a high worth terrorist target, terrorist attacks tend to put people off flying which is bad for business. That's why these rules were implemented.

The 100ml rule has always been more about security theatre than anything else, following the shoebomber and the (at the time) mysterious crash of an American Airlines flight in Queens.

I'd remain most worried about what goes into the hold. Or, indeed, the cockpit.

 

[heathrowrail]

The 100ml rule has always been more about security theatre than anything else, following the shoebomber and the (at the time) mysterious crash of an American Airlines flight in Queens.

I'd remain most worried about what goes into the hold. Or, indeed, the cockpit.

Anyone who goes in the cockpit has to go through a security vetting process which traces back at least 5 years of someone's history and includes a DBS check too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone who goes in the cockpit has to go through a security vetting process which traces back at least 5 years of someone's history and includes a DBS check too.

Didn't stop that German pilot deliberately crashing. Nor the pilot of MH370 who is looking likely to have done the same.

The problem is that they could be fine when the checks were done but not later.

 

[richw]

Anyone who goes in the cockpit has to go through a security vetting process which traces back at least 5 years of someone's history and includes a DBS check too.

On a recent flight after the hostess was talking my youngest step daughter mentioned it was her first flight. The pilot overheard and instantly invited step daughter and my own daughter, as well as my wife into the cockpit to see the controls etc. he did the same with a few other children, so I don’t think your post is quite accurate if the pilot can invite passengers in for a look.

A DBS isn’t the be all and end all, it means someone potentially hasn’t been caught and not that they aren’t a risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a recent flight after the hostess was talking my youngest step daughter mentioned it was her first flight. The pilot overheard and instantly invited step daughter and my own daughter, as well as my wife into the cockpit to see the controls etc. he did the same with a few other children, so I don’t think your post is quite accurate if the pilot can invite passengers in for a look.

Only when on the ground with the engines stopped. You can't do very much of harm then, bar a silly PA or similar.

A DBS isn’t the be all and end all, it means someone potentially hasn’t been caught and not that they aren’t a risk.

Very true.

 

[heathrowrail]

Didn't stop that German pilot deliberately crashing. Nor the pilot of MH370 who is looking likely to have done the same.

The problem is that they could be fine when the checks were done but not later.

You literally have one done weeks before starting your job and you have to declare any new criminal offences otherwise you can be sacked.

 

[CE142]

About f****** time! Have done many a flight outside of Europe were my liquids suddenly weren't explosive even though when in Europe they was! Now can we get rid of the random removing of belts and shoes as well please?

 

[AlterEgo]

Anyone who goes in the cockpit has to go through a security vetting process which traces back at least 5 years of someone's history and includes a DBS check too.

Means they haven’t been caught yet. Vetting is important but it is in no way a guarantee of safety at all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2022 ==

About f****** time! Have done many a flight outside of Europe were my liquids suddenly weren't explosive even though when in Europe they was! Now can we get rid of the random removing of belts and shoes as well please?

You don’t have to remove your shoes in the UK.

 

[richw]

You don’t have to remove your shoes in the UK.

Certain types of footwear get asked to be removed. Last flights we did in a group of 8 of us, 3 of the females wearing boots were asked to remove them. The rest wearing trainers were fine to keep them on

 

[gabrielhj07]

Certain types of footwear get asked to be removed. Last flights we did in a group of 8 of us, 3 of the females wearing boots were asked to remove them. The rest wearing trainers were fine to keep them on

I was told to remove my shoes at Leeds Bradford about a month ago.

 

[Mojo]

You don’t have to remove your shoes in the UK.

I joke that you can tell when an American is infront of you at airport security as they take their shoes off without being asked to.

I’ve had it in the USA however in the past where I haven’t been asked to take shoes off. Not sure if they just didn’t notice or what.

 

[Mike395]

I joke that you can tell when an American is infront of you at airport security as they take their shoes off without being asked to.

I’ve had it in the USA however in the past where I haven’t been asked to take shoes off. Not sure if they just didn’t notice or what.

You probably won the PreCheck lottery - foreign nationals booked on flights with airlines enrolled in the scheme sometimes will get assigned it automatically, which means no need to remove shoes etc.

 

[Howardh]

If a terrorist wanted to do real damage, they could do so in the crowded check-in areas at bank holidays, way before any security. I really am unsure as to what the 100mm/1L rule is trying to do other than to say "we're doing something" and to make sure passengers HAVE to buy drinks at extortionate prices in the cafes or aircraft.

Sooner these new scanners are brought in the better.

 

[AlterEgo]

I joke that you can tell when an American is infront of you at airport security as they take their shoes off without being asked to.

I’ve had it in the USA however in the past where I haven’t been asked to take shoes off. Not sure if they just didn’t notice or what.

Some airport security areas in the USA aren’t run by TSA and the rules are different.

 

[Mojo]

Some airport security areas in the USA aren’t run by TSA and the rules are different.

I’ve only ever used TSA security locations.

 

[brad465]

Didn't stop that German pilot deliberately crashing. Nor the pilot of MH370 who is looking likely to have done the same.

The problem is that they could be fine when the checks were done but not later.

The German pilot was able to conceal doctor's notes saying he shouldn't be flying, and was also have found to have searched the web for info on cockpit door provisions. I don't know if things have tightened up since, but yes security checks were insufficient there no doubt.

If a terrorist wanted to do real damage, they could do so in the crowded check-in areas at bank holidays, way before any security. I really am unsure as to what the 100mm/1L rule is trying to do other than to say "we're doing something" and to make sure passengers HAVE to buy drinks at extortionate prices in the cafes or aircraft.

Sooner these new scanners are brought in the better.

Pretty much what the Belgian airport attack constituted, and while alternative setups were debated, nothing became of them, including due to impracticalities and a recognition that it would be a win for terrorists.

The fact that the 2006 plot was foiled before it could happen is proof that intelligence services were up to standard regardless of any cabin restrictions related to the chemicals involved.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If a terrorist wanted to do real damage, they could do so in the crowded check-in areas at bank holidays, way before any security

Indeed.

In Sri Lanka you have to go through a security check to even get into the terminal, precisely because of that country's history with terrorism.

 

[rf_ioliver]

The 100ml rule has always been more about security theatre than anything else, following the shoebomber and the (at the time) mysterious crash of an American Airlines flight in Queens.

I'd remain most worried about what goes into the hold. Or, indeed, the cockpit.

I always found it curious that this was introduced to prevent the explosive being made on the aircraft itself by mixing the chemicals together. Security when they confiscate these items then throw them all into a large rubbish bin....

Securiy expert Bruce Schneier's blog on this topic makes for interesting reading.

 

[Scotrail314209]

The rule was introduced because of the attempted 2006 Transatlantic Bomb Plot, where terrorists plotted to blow up several transatlantic flights departing from London Heathrow using liquid bombs.

Taking liquids on flights has been restricted for 16 years

A foiled 'liquid bomb' terror plot led to rules banning liquids in containers of more than 100ml from being carried on planes in hand luggage

www.chroniclelive.co.uk

Rules that first banned liquids before changing to strict restrictions were enforced on August 10, 2006. They were brought in after British security services foiled a 'liquid bomb plot'.

The plotters - who were jailed - planned to bring hydrogen peroxide-derived explosives onto transatlantic planes and snuck inside soft drink bottles, which they aimed to turn into explosives once on board.

Initially, all liquids were banned, but that was changed by November 2006 to allow passengers to bring 100ml containers on board.

I’ll be happy to see the rule go once the new scanners are introduced, security technology has come a long way since 2006.

 

[Howardh]

Heard again that they are due in 2024, maybe earlier if some airports are doing trials. However it won't be all airports at the same time, so it would be prudent to check your airports before setting off.

Example, if Manchester has the scanners and you take all your liquids with you that you want to take, the return airport may well not have those scanners so you are restricted again.

 

[Wolfie]

Heard again that they are due in 2024, maybe earlier if some airports are doing trials. However it won't be all airports at the same time, so it would be prudent to check your airports before setting off.

Example, if Manchester has the scanners and you take all your liquids with you that you want to take, the return airport may well not have those scanners so you are restricted again.

I'd suggest caution when using transit flights too for similar reasons.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Heard again that they are due in 2024, maybe earlier if some airports are doing trials. However it won't be all airports at the same time, so it would be prudent to check your airports before setting off.

It looks like 2024 will see fairly widespread rollouts of the technology. It can't come soon enough!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Heard again that they are due in 2024, maybe earlier if some airports are doing trials. However it won't be all airports at the same time, so it would be prudent to check your airports before setting off.

Example, if Manchester has the scanners and you take all your liquids with you that you want to take, the return airport may well not have those scanners so you are restricted again.

Diversions followed by a hop to the original airport after a while on the ground could become interesting unless they keep everyone on board or at least airside...?

 

[Cloud Strife]

Diversions followed by a hop to the original airport after a while on the ground could become interesting unless they keep everyone on board or at least airside...?

Usually they keep everyone airside in these circumstances.

 

[Mojo]

City Airport has announced that the last old generation machine will be taken out by the middle of the month, with the last CT scanner installed by the end of this month, meaning they will be the first major UK airport to offer this service.

Extract from City Airport press release: https://media.londoncityairport.com...to-deliver-new-security-experience-by-easter/

And that experience is set to get even better. LCY already has 2 new generation, CT security scanning lanes in operation. From mid-March a third will be added, and the last old generation machine taken out of service. The final new generation lane will be added at the end of March, meaning anyone flying through LCY in the run up to Easter will be able to keep laptops and liquids up to 2 litres inside their bag.

Commenting of the latest figures, and looking ahead, the airport’s CEO, Robert Sinclair said:

“London City is continuing to move in the right direction. The start of the year has been in line with expectations, but we will see a step change from the Easter period onwards and we will be geared up to serve close to 2019 levels of passengers in periods through the summer.

And the good news for anyone planning a holiday or a business trip is that we will be the first mainstream UK airport to offer a fully CT security experience from the end of this month. The new lanes will not only cut hassle, but also cut queuing times, which I know passengers will love.”