Cannot carry liquids onto aeroplane as cabin baggage...


Status
Not open for further replies.

asterixsg

Senior Member
May 22, 2006
2,060
0
0
Somewhere in this creation
#1
Mods,
I know this is a sensitive topic, so if you think this shouldn't be discussed here, please feel free to take it off.

All,
I am a bit puzzled with this regulation that you can't carry liquids, perfumes, soaps etc. onto an aeroplane. Agreed that I didn't follow closely the developments last year when the British police unearthed a plot where some 'terrorists' had planned to prepare explosives using liquids to blow up aeroplanes.

I am wondering what this regulation means...

1. Is it so easy to manufacture explosives ? And so cheap ?
2. We don't have the technology to detect and differentiate between different forms of liquids ? What I mean is that can't we even tell if its water and not explosive fuels etc. ?
3. What next ?

I've discussed this amongst colleagues and friends and I haven't got any convincing answers. All sorts of conspiracy theories have cropped up, but it still doesn't make enough sense to me.

Where are we leading ourselves ? I don't know if any of you have faced this, but when I flew via Frankfurt earlier this year, I was asked to surrender 2 bottles of perfumes because they were 125ml (more than the legal limit of 100ml) and a 250ml bottle of water that I had picked up from Singapore Airlines.

PS : I would appreciate if people can keep race, religion and countries out of this discussion. I don't want to kick up a political storm out of this. Thanks a lot.
 

deckard

New Member
Oct 13, 2006
1,241
0
0
#2
now that people know that they cannot say the "B" word at the airport. They need to find something else to do. :bsmilie:

I think they too free. :bsmilie:
 

yanyewkay

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2004
3,924
0
0
Cons digger.
#3
i guess it's all about being answerable and following the 'trend'. I guess we don't want to be branded as being oblivious to the int'l threat and slack. There's always a need to portray ourselves as being concerned and the 'UP THERE' image.

Also being answerable if anything should happen, at least there were measures put in place to deter it from happening. If it (touchwood) realy did happen, we can say "we did our best" as like we always do.
 

asterixsg

Senior Member
May 22, 2006
2,060
0
0
Somewhere in this creation
#6
No, I am not referring to the recent regulation at Changi airport.

I am talking at an overall security perspective - all over the world.

The basic questions remain unanswered. Why can't I carry water with me into an aeroplane ? Can a bomb be made from water ? Can the available technology not detect that its water being carried and not diesel or petrol ?
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#7
1. Yes, it's really that easy to make explosives.
2. No, we can only detect that it's a liquid. It's difficult to tell gasoline or nitroglyrerine from perfume or hairgel as they have similar denstiy.

NOTE: NOT ALL liquids are banned. Just liquids in containers that can hold more than 100ml, and the liquids should fit into the clear, resealable plasic bags with a maximum capacity of 1L.

The regulation NEVER said that you cannot carry any liquids at all in your cabin luggage.
 

Jinks

New Member
Jan 6, 2007
74
0
0
#8
The regulation NEVER said that you cannot carry any liquids at all in your cabin luggage.
You're right, the security measures for LAGs applies only to hand-carry luggage. So if you don't want the hassle, just check them in - you have a choice.

Besides, I believe these are new requirements imposed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation - an int'l body which S'pore is a member of.
 

drakon09

New Member
Aug 12, 2005
3,877
0
0
#9
The basic questions remain unanswered. Why can't I carry water with me into an aeroplane ? Can a bomb be made from water ? Can the available technology not detect that its water being carried and not diesel or petrol ?
Just by looking, you can't tell from water, turpentine or vodka.

If I'm not wrong, nitroglycerine is colourless as well.
 

raincool2005

Senior Member
Sep 10, 2005
1,808
0
0
Raffles Place
#10
i think such move is good.

from that recent UK case, they indeed had ways to make explosives in liquid form housed in canned drinks.

i know it is damm troublesome.. but this is the world we are now living in...NO CHOICE LOH.

in fact it will be more troublesome for families to find undertakers and insurance companies should some crazy men succeed in their evil plans.

:think:
 

Aug 16, 2005
83
0
0
#12
actually the Japanese already have the technology.... at all their airports, there is a scanner that you just have to put your bottle of liquid on it and if it flashes green means u are cleared. Red... I imagine a swat team pinning you down in a min.

The sensor detects if the bottle contains water or chemical agents like sarin.

I dont think it is hard to adapt it to detecting liquid explosives. Most likely a matter of costs. Easily for airports to ban you from bringing the items onboard then to have measures to ensure that what you have is not a bomb.
 

StrifeYun

Senior Member
Nov 15, 2006
2,231
0
36
Rivervale Drive
#13
u can bring liquids hand carry.

must be not more than 1 liture.
must put in a clear zip lock bag.
must put nice nice and zip up.
not more than 100ml per item.

*but but last time they threw away my EYE DROP !! :x
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#14
I really do not see what is the fuss. I actually rather appreciate the current rules. More people check in their luggage, less mess in the cabin, life is infinately better.

As far as water goes, I bring a 1/2 liter bottle, empty, go through swecurity, and fill the bottle with water once I get on the plane. Simple as that!
 

yanyewkay

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2004
3,924
0
0
Cons digger.
#15
budget airlines don't provide water filling services. you got to buy at a 'special' price
 

asterixsg

Senior Member
May 22, 2006
2,060
0
0
Somewhere in this creation
#16
1. Yes, it's really that easy to make explosives.
If its that easy, then it begs a question - why are billions being spent around the world on research into making explosives ?

2. No, we can only detect that it's a liquid. It's difficult to tell gasoline or nitroglyrerine from perfume or hairgel as they have similar denstiy.
I didn't know this. Thanks for pointing out.
But does it mean that before 2006, one could carry gasoline and the authorities wouldn't have been able to detect ? No, I am not arguing with you. Just my curiosity. That's all.

NOTE: NOT ALL liquids are banned. Just liquids in containers that can hold more than 100ml, and the liquids should fit into the clear, resealable plasic bags with a maximum capacity of 1L.
If someone really were to misuse it, one can put 10-12 bottles of 75ml each and still beat the rules. If there is a risk, they should ban it completely, isn't it ?

The regulation NEVER said that you cannot carry any liquids at all in your cabin luggage.
Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't want a very long and complex worded Thread Title, so I tried to scringe on words.
 

asterixsg

Senior Member
May 22, 2006
2,060
0
0
Somewhere in this creation
#17
You're right, the security measures for LAGs applies only to hand-carry luggage. So if you don't want the hassle, just check them in - you have a choice.

Besides, I believe these are new requirements imposed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation - an int'l body which S'pore is a member of.
Of course, these days when I travel, everything gets packed nicely and checked in. No lens cleaning liquid, no perfumes, no water etc. in my cabin baggage.

I know its inconvenient and security is of utmost importance. My thread was just to understand the rationale behind this measure - especially when it includes something as basic as water.

I am not here to question Singapore's compliance.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#18
If its that easy, then it begs a question - why are billions being spent around the world on research into making explosives ?
The research goes into making them stronger while smaller.


I didn't know this. Thanks for pointing out.
But does it mean that before 2006, one could carry gasoline and the authorities wouldn't have been able to detect ? No, I am not arguing with you. Just my curiosity. That's all.
Basically, yeah. You could have filled 2-3 cologne bottles with gasoline, they'd not have known. They only looked for matches and lighters.


If someone really were to misuse it, one can put 10-12 bottles of 75ml each and still beat the rules. If there is a risk, they should ban it completely, isn't it ?
It has to fit into the 1L resealable bag. And random checks will ask you to test the liquid (spray the cologne, drink the water, etc)
 

asterixsg

Senior Member
May 22, 2006
2,060
0
0
Somewhere in this creation
#19
actually the Japanese already have the technology.... at all their airports, there is a scanner that you just have to put your bottle of liquid on it and if it flashes green means u are cleared. Red... I imagine a swat team pinning you down in a min.

The sensor detects if the bottle contains water or chemical agents like sarin.
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

I dont think it is hard to adapt it to detecting liquid explosives. Most likely a matter of costs. Easily for airports to ban you from bringing the items onboard then to have measures to ensure that what you have is not a bomb.
Thanks. This makes sense. Its most likely a matter of cost. Rather than invest in the technology, better ban it.
 

Deadpoet

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2004
4,619
0
0
#20
Changi, goto DFS, bought a bottle of wine, go thru security, no problem, board plane, transit in Frankfurt, need to go through security, bottle no good ....... how ..... drank wine with 2 fellow strangers, dump bottle, go through custome, no more problem :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom