Electronics larger than a cellphone to be banned from flights from some countries.

Archived From: Travel Discussion
  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:

U.K. considering joining U.S. airline electronics ban - Mar. 21, 2017
Disclaimer

U.K. considering joining U.S. airline electronics ban - Mar. 21, 2017
Disclaimer
CNN Link 

This does suck.  When they include the United Arab Emirates, the thinking is it also assumes connections.  Dubai is a huge hub.  No guarantees they won't add more countries.

Then there is the question whether this really does improve safety.  If one was going to hide some sort of explosive device in their carry-on electronics, is it any harder to do the same checking-in the same electronics?  Also, what would be the use of WiFi and workstation areas in airports/airplanes if you have to check that stuff in?  Checking in laptops is risky.  A highly prized item to be stolen out of someone's luggage like a photographer's expensive camera.  That along with important and confidential data people carry with them, and also the fact that luggage is lost and manhandled  You could be without your important laptop once you get to a business meeting.  It could also be damaged or destroyed.  I've got back my luggage after checking it in that ended up looking like it fell out an airplane.  I doubt electronics would survive.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Preclearnce is not security screening.  It's immigration and customs.

However one of the criteria for establishing precle... (more)

seawolf21 (Mar. 31, 2017 @ 7:44a) |

MommyOfHAndK (May. 10, 2017 @ 6:58p) |

Not yet, but the article said there were 33 fire related issues in passenger cabins in 2016 from electronics.  Put that ... (more)

burgerwars (May. 14, 2017 @ 2:22p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

 
 I'm just saying.  You can't carry a gun on board but can check-in a suitcase full.  What's to stop someone from rigging the gun to go off automatically in their checked bag that then shoots holes in the airplane.  Pan Am 103 went down from something that was thought to be a portable radio inside a checked bag.   Nothing is going to protect us 100%.  I smell some sort of politics going on here.

burgerwars said:     I smell some sort of politics going on here.
  
You think????  The UK and US gov'ts are effectively the same now implementing isolationist/racist policies (i.e., may and don)

it is all nonsense... like all safety measures taken after September 11. It makes the US passengers feel more safe and that the government is acting to protect them.

Am I less safe when I fly inbound to the USA from a European airport (I did not remove my shoes at security check)? Why can I keep my phone on now? Something changed recently on technology of airplanes?

alexiosp said:   it is all nonsense... like all safety measures taken after September 11. It makes the US passengers feel more safe and that the government is acting to protect them.

Am I less safe when I fly inbound to the USA from a European airport (I did not remove my shoes at security check)? Why can I keep my phone on now? Something changed recently on technology of airplanes?

  nope , nothing changed, the stupid FAA decided to just change the rules. BTW, I always used to keep my phone on in the airplane (but on silent) and nothing happened so there!.... worry-mongers!

prastogi said:   
 
... BTW, I always used to keep my phone on in the airplane (but on silent) and nothing happened so there!.... worry-mongers!

  wow, you're such a badass, I'm so impressed 


I agree that this is nonsense.  Apparently it is an issue only flying from these places, on these airlines, and not to these places from the US.  I frequently fly AUH-JFK on Etihad and have to say that from my experience the security is just as thorough as in the US, if not more thorough, but much more polite and efficient.  This is going to create a huge problem for people flying from the UAE for business.  

And what about this:  You can fly on Emirates from Athens to Newark on a flight that originates in Dubai (5th freedom flight).  But no electronics ban on the ATH-EWR segment.  I trust the Emirati security more than the Greek security.

Wow, they are now using some thought (discrimination) in screening. Imagine profiling just a few countries instead of banning these items from every airport. Maybe next, they won't apply the same level of screening for babies and travellers over 80 years old and pay more attention to younger passengers ( sorry not PC today ). Of course, much of the screening methods are poorly effective, but that is another can of worms.

An interesting development just as some airlines are doing away with setback TV screens.  Maybe they will have to rethink that and put the screens back on the seats.

Don't worry....Trump will keep us as safe as G.W. Bush did.

kl001 said:   Probably because of this recent info.
  So, the enterprising hacker can't fly via Zurich? 

rpi1967 said:   Wow, they are now using some thought (discrimination) in screening. Imagine profiling just a few countries instead of banning these items from every airport. Maybe next, they won't apply the same level of screening for babies and travellers over 80 years old and pay more attention to younger passengers ( sorry not PC today ). Of course, much of the screening methods are poorly effective, but that is another can of worms.
  This idea of calling anything that doesn't fit your discriminatory viewpoint "PC" is a bit silly.
There are reasons for screening babies and old people. The minute you don't, terrorists will rig up a baby with a bomb. As for old people...old extremists are no less dangerous than young ones. Having white hair is hardly going to mellow out an ISIS suicide bomber.

In this case, the discriminatory screening seems...simply discriminatory.
Firstly:  Instead of booking a direct flight, the bomber will simply fly to Europe first, unpack his checked luggage, and then fly to the US. If the bomber already has the necessary papers to get to the US, then flying to Europe would be no hindrance. It seems to make little sense, unless you take into account the political climate. It basically just makes life difficult for Muslims.

Secondly: If this was really a threat, all other nations -particularly the G7 nations like Canada (which participates in Afghanistan and is a Target ) and Germany - would be implementing this as well. But no.

Thirdly: A bomb hidden in checked luggage is almost as deadly as a bomb hidden in a carry-on. If this was truly a threat, the electronics wouldn't be allowed on board at all.


I skimmed a handful of articles in UK and US newspapers about this a couple of days ago --
I don't remember everything that they said, but I think the following is correct:

* The UK brought in this ban too, though for fewer countries. (I think that it was for 3 fewer countries.)

* However, I think that the UK did extend the ban to UK-based carriers as well as foreign carriers, which the US did not do. Treating all carriers from the same departure airports equally appears to be more logical, and more fair commercially.

* Other large EU countries declined to join the ban, at least for the present time.

* Various applicable insurance policies usually don't cover electronics that are put in the hold, so they have asked insurance companies to broaden their policies on this.

* Having all those batteries in the hold, especially with the increase in recent years of device batteries that randomly catch on fire, is a safety risk, and some experts have said that this is probably more risky for a flight than the chance of having a bomb on board.

honestly I have no idea why abu shabi, with preclearance security, is included. Are they saying that US staffed security isnt good enough?

scrouds said:   honestly I have no idea why abu shabi, with preclearance security, is included. Are they saying that US staffed security isnt good enough?
  I believe you have answered your own question.

A laptop with most of the battery removed may still be able to turn on and last for several minutes. The fear is that the resulting space can be filled with a pound or two of Sentex or C-4. If placed against structural support and detonated, this could be enough to take down an airliner. If the device was placed against the aluminum skin, as was done in the unsuccessful attempt to down a Somali jet, the plane might not crash. In at least two case bombings were facilitated by ground crew.

​If the same device was placed in cargo, it would quickly run out of power. The damage caused by an explosive device decrease by the square of the distance, so a device that was 10' away from a Target would only exert 1% of the force on it.

Link 
​ 

 

A couple of suggestions:

1. Bring an old laptop and use SD cards for data. Because my work computers contain proprietary information, I prefer to travel with a laptop with no company info contained on the hard drive and use removable media for work product.

2. Use a phone with a Bluetooth keyboard while working on a plane.

3. Check camera bodies and keep lenses in carry-ons.

4. If traveling in first or business, enjoy the food and drinks and forget about work for a few hours.

ryeny3 said:   A laptop with most of the battery removed may still be able to turn on and last for several minutes. The fear is that the resulting space can be filled with a pound or two of Sentex or C-4. If placed against structural support and detonated, this could be enough to take down an airliner. If the device was placed against the aluminum skin, as was done in the unsuccessful attempt to down a Somali jet, the plane might not crash. In at least two case bombings were facilitated by ground crew.

​If the same device was placed in cargo, it would quickly run out of power. The damage caused by an explosive device decrease by the square of the distance, so a device that was 10' away from a Target would only exert 1% of the force on it.

Link 
​ 

 

  Look at the Lockerbie bombing. That plane was brought down by a small amount of explosive in a walkman. In a suitcase in checked luggage.
2 lbs of C-4 is more than powerful enough, consider that the skin of a plane is only very thin aluminum. The blast would create a lot of pressure on the aluminum walls, since it's an enclosed space and the air driven by the blast can't dissipate. It's not about pressure on a single point. A whole panel would get hit by the shockwave, and blow out.

I have trouble believing that the airlines (and US security) would take this risk if the threat is real.

scrouds said:   honestly I have no idea why abu shabi, with preclearance security, is included. Are they saying that US staffed security isnt good enough?
  Preclearnce is not security screening.  It's immigration and customs.

However one of the criteria for establishing preclearance is the host airport security screening procedure is up to US standards.  So yes this whole electronics ban is theatre.


MommyOfHAndK said:   US to ban laptops in cabins on flights from Europe
  
Not yet, but the article said there were 33 fire related issues in passenger cabins in 2016 from electronics.  Put that stuff in the cargo hold, and 33 fires would have happened where there weren't people to evaluate and put out the fires.  So what this ban may accomplish is stopping the remote possibility of an explosive being put in a laptop (in the passenger compartment but not in the cargo hold), but in trade, cause the greater possibility of 33 aircraft crashing because of fires in the cargo hold.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017