Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Broad Electronics Ban

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Broad Electronics Ban

    Interesting.

    I thought it was already 'decided' that it was preferable to make everyone BYOT and then the airline only has to worry about keeping a couple of Wi-Fi routers working instead of 200 screens. Plus there might be weight savings as I-pads get thinner and lighter.

    Conversely, who'd trust Li batteries anyway...



    Note: Discussions of "why" seem notably lacking. Off to get some Reynolds wrap and make a hat.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  • #2
    Why? Trump.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by elaw View Post
      Why? Trump.
      Something's afoot. Authorities have known about the threat since that terrorist blew himself out of the aircraft in Somalia (last year?). I think the threat is legit but why only these points of origin? I doubt anyone has better security than the emirates and anyone from a high-risk nation can simply board a connecting flight to Paris or Amsterdam or anywhere else for that matter.

      It smells of Trump...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Something's afoot. Authorities have known about the threat since that terrorist blew himself out of the aircraft in Somalia (last year?). I think the threat is legit but why only these points of origin? I doubt anyone has better security than the emirates and anyone from a high-risk nation can simply board a connecting flight to Paris or Amsterdam or anywhere else for that matter.

        It smells of Trump...

        As they say. Stinks to high heaven!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Something's afoot. Authorities have known about the threat since that terrorist blew himself out of the aircraft in Somalia (last year?). I think the threat is legit but why only these points of origin? I doubt anyone has better security than the emirates and anyone from a high-risk nation can simply board a connecting flight to Paris or Amsterdam or anywhere else for that matter.

          It smells of Trump...
          Today there were articles with a tad more information- that explosives could be placed in laptops (ref the Somolia incident). Ironingly, I remember a time period when you had to turn on your laptop for the TSA...and since then, I assumed that protocols and more advanced x-ray thingies were able to detect bad stuff.

          ...and yes, a list of countries that I think are on Trump's terrorist-hot-bed list...

          IF it's Trump, quite the execution..."the story" was that OTHER airlines had enacted it...and then US folks followed suit.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, much as I enjoy picking on Trump, it appears the brits have followed suit.

            So maybe the ban is somehow reality-based after all?

            I wonder if there's something different about the explosives or technology being used (or suspected so). After all, explosives in consumer electronics have been a thing for quite a while now* so presumably something has changed.

            * I mean "aftermarket" explosives... not the ones they put in cellphones, laptops, hoverboards, etc. at the factory.
            Be alert! America needs more lerts.

            Eric Law

            Comment


            • #7
              I wonder if the EgyptAir MS804 investigation had anything to do with this announcement.

              Comment


              • #8
                But MS804 departed FROM Paris, and thus not one of the origin airports in question. I think part of the issue here, not really in the public domain, is that western authorities don't have confidence in the security capability of certain airports.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                  But MS804 departed FROM Paris, and thus not one of the origin airports in question. I think part of the issue here, not really in the public domain, is that western authorities don't have confidence in the security capability of certain airports.
                  Again, this makes no sense. FIrstly, some of the banned destinations have the best security reputations in the world. Secondly, a would-be terrorist can simply get a connecting flight to a non-banned airport. Thirdly, the issue here is that airport security capabilities are not sufficient to detect the threat ANYWHERE. Fourthly, the US ALREADY bans ALL flights from airports with questionable security in place.

                  So why is this not a worldwide ban for ALL flights to the US and UK?

                  This is a real threat, but the response is politically distorted.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Again, this makes no sense. FIrstly, some of the banned destinations have the best security reputations in the world. Secondly, a would-be terrorist can simply get a connecting flight to a non-banned airport. Thirdly, the issue here is that airport security capabilities are not sufficient to detect the threat ANYWHERE. Fourthly, the US ALREADY bans ALL flights from airports with questionable security in place.

                    So why is this not a worldwide ban for ALL flights to the US and UK?

                    This is a real threat, but the response is politically distorted.
                    Who's to say that origin airports for flights to the US are not questionable ? The issue is not those countries as destinations but as departure points, with their associated security. That's been an assumption in the past, and certainly some inbound carriers do have to make an additional security stop. But assessments change, information changes, and I have a strong sense that there are, and have been, doubts about security protocols at certain airports, coupled maybe (and I don't know this for sure, of course) with new fears on terrorist skills. Of course, a terrorist could still find another route, another airport, but the presumption is that such airport has a sufficiently robust level of security which would uncover what they're looking for. Terrorists often work in teams, and overcoming possible infiltration is one of the major fears in certain locales.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                      but the presumption is that such airport has a sufficiently robust level of security which would uncover what they're looking for.
                      How? The official reports noted that there have been advancements in using low-metallic content plastic explosives in the guise of batteries in battery compartments. How are these detected? Many laptops today have multiple batteries and some are not removeable. They can certainly configure this so that the machine turns on and functions normally, and even reports full battery charge. So what's the plan to detect these, and is it in place in airports other than the ones listed on the ban? Cuz if it isn't, this makes very little sense...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All that may well be true, I'm sure. I come back to the point that, while security procedures may theoretically be identical and reliable in every airport, would you like to rely on that in practice in certain named airports, especially if intelligence was pointing to the possibility of new risks ?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by HalcyonDays View Post
                          All that may well be true, I'm sure. I come back to the point that, while security procedures may theoretically be identical and reliable in every airport, would you like to rely on that in practice in certain named airports, especially if intelligence was pointing to the possibility of new risks ?
                          I wouldn't rely on that at ANY airports. That's the point. Why only ban laptops from a handful of possible boarding points, especially when some of those boarding points have the world's best security in place. Why not ban from all of them? You know what would have happened on Sept, 11th 2001 if the terrorists had tried to board flights from Dubai or Riyadh with knives on them? Nothing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Evan View Post
                            I wouldn't rely on that at ANY airports. That's the point. Why only ban laptops from a handful of possible boarding points, especially when some of those boarding points have the world's best security in place. Why not ban from all of them? You know what would have happened on Sept, 11th 2001 if the terrorists had tried to board flights from Dubai or Riyadh with knives on them? Nothing.
                            Indeed, why not ban from all of them ? Isn't that exactly the point ?

                            Of course, there continue to be other kinds of threats, and systems may (reliably or not) remain in place to deal with all of hem, necessarily so. But newly identified threats demand urgent mitigation, however imperfect short-term. What is going on at those airport ?

                            I'm not above believing that there may be commercial/protectionist motivations which certain US authorities may see as secondarily advantageous to the economic support of American carriers. Nonethrless, the usually more level-headed British are on board with this too.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              I wouldn't rely on that at ANY airports. That's the point. Why only ban laptops from a handful of possible boarding points, especially when some of those boarding points have the world's best security in place. Why not ban from all of them? You know what would have happened on Sept, 11th 2001 if the terrorists had tried to board flights from Dubai or Riyadh with knives on them? Nothing.
                              Indeed, why not ban from all of them ? Isn't that exactly the point ?

                              Of course, there continue to be other kinds of threats, and systems may (reliably or not) remain in place to deal with all of them, necessarily so. But newly identified threats demand urgent mitigation, however imperfect short-term. What is going on at those airports ?

                              I'm not above believing that there may be commercial/protectionist motivations which certain US authorities may see as secondarily advantageous to the economic support of American carriers. Nonetheless, the usually more level-headed British are on board with this too.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X