Carry-on liquid ban expected to be lifted — in the UK
The UK government is in discussions with security companies and UK airports to lift the ban on liquids in carry-on luggage as early as next year. Technology already in-place at Heathrow’s Terminal 5 can automatically detect the presence of liquids in carry-on bags. Scientists are testing the scanners to ensure they can also determine if the liquids are harmful.
While that may be good news for UK travelers, in the US, Homeland Security and TSA currently have announced no such discussions to lift the liquid ban here, though I’m sure they’re monitoring the UK testing.
According to a security expert interviewed in the UK by The Independent,
The technology is there, which will allow these scanners not only to test for liquids but also to determine if those liquids are dangerous or not. At the moment, that technology is being tested by the security services and when they are happy that it works, the ban will be lifted.
Four UK airports including Heathrow have bought the liquid detection scanners, and more are on order as the testing of the equipment continues. The Independent reports a Virgin Atlantic spokesperson stated the “time may now be right” for a change in the security rules. Virgin has called for a full review into the security measures involving carry-on luggage according to View London News.
With testing of the new scanning equipment expected to be completed by the year’s end, many are speculating that the liquid ban in the UK could be lifted early next year, but only after all UK airports are equipped with the new scanners.
That’s clearly a problem for TSA in the US. There are more airports in just the Northeast US than all of the UK. While there are 30 UK commercial airports, in the US there are almost 450 commercial airports; it’s going to take a huge financial expenditure to outfit all of them with liquid scanners.
There are still security experts in the UK calling for the ban to remain in place even if the new scanners pass all government tests. TravelCounsellors reports Peter Clarke, former head of counter terrorism at Scotland Yard, told BBC News that the ban must remain in place. Citing his take on the scanning speed of the devices tested thus far, Mr. Clarke stated, “This means of detonation is still in the hands of the terrorists, and so to wind back security, to think of going back to a position where the terrorists could defeat airport security, seems to me foolhardy.”
Last year, The Norwegian Ministry of Transportation asked the EU to lift the liquid ban on airplanes citing its large cost for society, compared to the benefits, according to a report by security expert, Bruce Schneier. The European Parliament agreed with 464 votes for lifting the ban, and only 158 against, with 70 abstentions. Unfortunately, the European Parliament is powerless and their decisions are regularly ignored, as in this case. The European Commission has the real power and they have kept the EU ban in place.
In my July article, Maybe TSA’s liquid rules don’t make us safer — just angrier, I showed how a group of 8 terrorists could assemble 4 quart sized bombs on board a plane under current TSA regulations, which to my mind renders the ban “bankrupt TSA policy.” When the scanners being tested in the UK are ready for action, I support them being installed in the US, as they will actually make fliers safer.
That being said, while the current liquid ban on carry-on luggage might make fliers feel safer, in my opinion it doesn’t actually make them safer. The time has come to lift the world-wide ban on liquids in carry-ons whether the new scanning equipment is in place or not. It’s time for TSA, and their counterparts throughout the world to start psychologically scanning people with far better trained agents than they have now, if they really want to stop terrorism in the air.
You may also be interested in these articles
Comments
5 Responses to “Carry-on liquid ban expected to be lifted — in the UK”
Please share your thoughts...
That being said, while the current liquid ban on carry-on luggage might make fliers feel safer, in my opinion it doesn’t actually make them safer.
==========================================================
The United Kingdom has been subjected to Terrorist ATTACKS for DECADES!
Their decision to REDUCE the threat of harmful liquids onboard flights was proactive and necessary. They are SECURITY EXPERTS in the UK working to resolve this issue in a timely manner. And, they’re almost there. You criticize the TSA for inconveniencing you with the LIQUID RULE, yet you endorce psychological screening? Hmmmm, that makes showing up at the airport 30 minutes before your flight leaves……………………not possible. Ever fly out of Tel Aviv? I have and you better arrive several HOURS in advance of your flight. And, that wouldnt work in the US, people wouldnt and couldnt handle the inconvenience and resort to taking to the roads. MOST people want to be in a security line less then 20 minutes or they get ANGRY. Reducing the liquids out of that equation assists the TSA in doing their job.
If you’re angry over a THREE OUNCE liquid RULE, then the terrorists have won.
The apparent trend in Europe toward rejecting the liquid restrictions as an unjustified inconvenience creates more problems for the TSA than the cost of installing costly new technology. The TSA is a bureaucracy that depends on making people feel like it’s effective to justify its continued existence and expansion. Every test that’s been publicized consistently indicates that TSA screening is ineffective at keeping dangerous items off of planes, even as it pointlessly confiscates “contraband” shampoo and peanut butter. Keeping the inconvenience level as high as possible (along with the fear level) is absolutely essential to keep the public (and our elected representatives) distracted about the inadequacies and absurdities of the TSA so the agency can continue to expand.
The European approach of rationally assessing the value and effectiveness of the airport security approach that the TSA effectively dictates worldwide is a threat even greater than terrorism. It encourages articles like this one, which give Americans subversive ideas such as asking why the TSA can’t use advanced technology to reduce passenger hassles like the Europeans are doing. Kip Hawley has brilliantly countered this threat by spending $13 million to dress up screeners with flashy new uniforms that include a picture of the Twin Towers. That emphasizes the professionalism of the screeners while not so subtly reminding passengers of the fear and terror they felt on 9/11. Americans seem to be losing that fear and terror, and are starting to criticize and ask dangerous questions about the TSA and the Bush administration. The new uniforms are a necessary step toward restoring the proper balance that existed when the TSA was first established.
It seems that the main value of airport screening is to remind us that we need to be very afraid, and that our Leaders doing something about the threat. The more hassles are involved, the more effective the TSA is at this mission. Whether it actually does anything to protect aviation is largely irrelevant. The imminent departure of the Bush administration is an excellent time to start asking necessary questions about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TSA and the rest of the “Homeland Security” apparatus.
(And Frank, when people stop being angry about the TSA and stop questioning its value and effectiveness, the terrorists will have won. Terrorists win when they bog the enemy down in increasingly costly but dubiously effective “security” measures. They win even more when they transform a free society into a repressive security state where people are as terrified of their own Leaders as they are of terrorists.)
And Frank, when people stop being angry about the TSA and stop questioning its value and effectiveness, the terrorists will have won. Terrorists win when they bog the enemy down in increasingly costly but dubiously effective “security” measures.
======================================================
According to the Sky Marshalls that I have talked to, they are out there, and still testing the system. WE WIN when we keep one step ahead of the enemy—> Terrorists.
No one said, flying was safe. What we try to do is make it SAFER. And, thanks to SECURITY MEASURES in the UK, a terror plot was foiled. And, because of that, technology responses too!
Frank: “And, thanks to SECURITY MEASURES in the UK, a terror plot was foiled.”
Actually, it was old-fashioned intelligence and police work that foiled the plot. It had nothing to do with the sort of “security measures” that the TSA imposes at airports. Indeed, if intelligence and police work hadn’t foiled the plot before the plotters got to the airport, mass screening would not have stopped it no matter how much the screeners hassle passengers.
Mass screening can only react to security breaches after they’re discovered, typically by adding some new ill-conceived restriction or hassle at checkpoints. The reaction might reassure some people that the government is Doing Something, but my question whether that’s worth the price in hassles and dollars. If we’re going to have effective security, the resources and priorities would be better spent on intelligence and police work to foil plots long before they get near the airport. Instead, our TSA is spending its money on new uniforms for screeners who enforce stupid rules about liquids and shoes. I can only wonder whether the continuing emphasis on ineffective airport screening might mask a deficiency in less intrusive measures that actually are effective.
Frank: “And, thanks to SECURITY MEASURES in the UK, a terror plot was foiled.”
Actually, it was old-fashioned intelligence and police work that foiled the plot.
========================================================
Same thing. Security/Securing themselves against terrorist exists in the UK, beyond the property of the airports.
Instead, our TSA is spending its money on new uniforms for screeners who enforce stupid rules about liquids and shoes.
=======================================================
Terrorist found weaknesses in the system, your response to reduce it would be……..???? Full body X-ray machines? Profiling? Civil Liberty issues…anyone?
now mind you, this country has some 35,000 FLIGHTS per day in addition to HUNDREDS of AIRPORTS. Safety does come at a price, but too high of a price and no one is willing to pay for it.