3 ms·

You want batteries in the cabin where you can quickly locate, ascertain and compartmentalize the treat from randomly exploding batteries. This new regulation ma

by Darthy 10y ago

You want batteries in the cabin where you can quickly locate, ascertain and compartmentalize the treat from randomly exploding batteries. This new regulation makes travel less save. The IATA should put their foot down here.

function_seven 10y ago
The regulation is about bombs, not batteries. There has been a report that would-be bombers are using stolen (?) airport screening equipment to develop undetectable bombs. I’m not sure how effective this ban can be, but I assume there’s recent intelligence that prompted it.
- acjacobson 10y ago
  But laptops are still allowed to be checked and stored in the hull. If the bombs are undetectable then doesn't the problem remain?
  - function_seven 10y ago
    Like all air regulations, this one is full of holes. (Pilot can’t bring a pocketknife onboard, but has an axe in the cockpit for example). In this case, I suppose it’d be easier for the terrorist to have a manually-triggered bomb on their lap, vs having to also rig a GPS or time-delay bomb for the cargo hold. Obviously still do-able, but one step harder. To be clear, I’m not all that impressed by the ban or it’s effectiveness.
    - pavement 10y ago
      Also, to consider the pocket knife restriction, versus the axe, the axe is an inventoried community possession, while the pocket knife is an irregularity, and inconsistent across cabin populations. Some are big, some are small, some are ineffective as actual weapons, others being designed to function solely as weapons without any other utility. With the axe, it's a known quantity, unconcealable, large and conspicuous, but personal possessions are variable, and the only way to normalize them is to remove them from the equation.
      - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        Furthermore, bringing a pocket knife into the terminal gives the opportunity to transfer it to another person. An attacker might not be able to convince a pilot to use the cockpit axe for an attack, but could convince them to smuggle a knife through the security screening checkpoint.
  - shimon_e 10y ago
    I'm assuming the scanning machines for checked luggage are superior to carry-on luggage. I know in TLV they put checked luggage through a pressurisation check, in addition to all the scanning they do.
madeofpalk 10y ago
The irony here is that CASA (Australia's aviation regulatory body) bans laptops and iPads for being checked into luggage because of the batteries. Not that these conflicting requirements should affect anyone though - Australia flies directly to the US (or via Asia or NZ), and to the UK it usually flies through Doha, Dubai (which is not impacted by the UK ban).
- desdiv 10y ago
  Interestingly enough, Australia is the third country after US and UK to adopt the same "security protocols"[0]. And yet they're the first one not to ban the electronics. I suspect not because they didn't want to, but simply because they couldn't, on account of the no-checked-laptops rule you mentioned. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-laptop-ban-travel-restrictions-new-security-checks-uk-us-middle-east-flights-a7661361.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australi...
dingaling 10y ago
> The IATA should put their foot down here. Regulations and procedures for dangerous items are primarily codified by ICAO, a UN agency. IATA have their own superset but that only applies to members of that organisation, as opposed to the ICAO regs which are binding on air carriers based in UN nations.

by Darthy 10y ago

function_seven 10y ago

The regulation is about bombs, not batteries. There has been a report that would-be bombers are using stolen (?) airport screening equipment to develop undetectable bombs. I’m not sure how effective this ban can be, but I assume there’s recent intelligence that prompted it.

acjacobson 10y ago
But laptops are still allowed to be checked and stored in the hull. If the bombs are undetectable then doesn't the problem remain?
- function_seven 10y ago
  Like all air regulations, this one is full of holes. (Pilot can’t bring a pocketknife onboard, but has an axe in the cockpit for example). In this case, I suppose it’d be easier for the terrorist to have a manually-triggered bomb on their lap, vs having to also rig a GPS or time-delay bomb for the cargo hold. Obviously still do-able, but one step harder. To be clear, I’m not all that impressed by the ban or it’s effectiveness.
  - pavement 10y ago
    Also, to consider the pocket knife restriction, versus the axe, the axe is an inventoried community possession, while the pocket knife is an irregularity, and inconsistent across cabin populations. Some are big, some are small, some are ineffective as actual weapons, others being designed to function solely as weapons without any other utility. With the axe, it's a known quantity, unconcealable, large and conspicuous, but personal possessions are variable, and the only way to normalize them is to remove them from the equation.
    - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
      Furthermore, bringing a pocket knife into the terminal gives the opportunity to transfer it to another person. An attacker might not be able to convince a pilot to use the cockpit axe for an attack, but could convince them to smuggle a knife through the security screening checkpoint.
- shimon_e 10y ago
  I'm assuming the scanning machines for checked luggage are superior to carry-on luggage. I know in TLV they put checked luggage through a pressurisation check, in addition to all the scanning they do.

madeofpalk 10y ago

The irony here is that CASA (Australia's aviation regulatory body) bans laptops and iPads for being checked into luggage because of the batteries. Not that these conflicting requirements should affect anyone though - Australia flies directly to the US (or via Asia or NZ), and to the UK it usually flies through Doha, Dubai (which is not impacted by the UK ban).

desdiv 10y ago
Interestingly enough, Australia is the third country after US and UK to adopt the same "security protocols"[0]. And yet they're the first one not to ban the electronics. I suspect not because they didn't want to, but simply because they couldn't, on account of the no-checked-laptops rule you mentioned. [0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-laptop-ban-travel-restrictions-new-security-checks-uk-us-middle-east-flights-a7661361.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australi...

dingaling 10y ago

> The IATA should put their foot down here. Regulations and procedures for dangerous items are primarily codified by ICAO, a UN agency. IATA have their own superset but that only applies to members of that organisation, as opposed to the ICAO regs which are binding on air carriers based in UN nations.