Travelling through American airports with port

[jdaw1]

Fall-2009: Size restriction removed, but all liquids will have to be placed in a separate bin. AT X-Ray software will be advanced enough to tell the difference between threat and non-threat but not yet proven to tell the difference when it is hidden in a bag.

End of 2010: No restrictions. AT X-Ray will have upgraded software that is proven to detect threat liquids in any configuration and is deployed in enough places so that TSA can change the rules to meet one uniform standard for the country.

Next Steps
!
It is also likely that when the U.S. takes steps on liquid restrictions, we will do so in harmony with others, as we did with the 3-1-1 (three ounce container/one quart bag/one bag per person) liquids rule. It is fair to say that we and our global partners see the threat in the same way and know that a common, high level of security encompassing a large part of the world is in everybody’s best interests.
!
Liquids restrictions are with us for the better part of the next year but we all realize that a simple, hassle-free security process is good for passengers and security too.

Which will eventually make flying with port much easier and less reliant on the gentleness of baggage handlers.

[uncle tom]

As someone who occasionally describes himself as a 'licensed terrorist' I would comment thus:

Without going into details, it is really quite easy to bring down a passenger plane in flight, if the perpretrators have a moderate degree of intelligence and scientific knowledge - nothing that cannot be gleaned from the 'net.

The security precautions at airports are pretty much a waste of time - they only serve to reassure the travelling public.

Terrorist movements have always been hampered by the 'intelligence gap' - but when intelligent and scientifically minded people feel sufficiently aggrieved, there are few boundaries...

Solution: Don't upset people that much.

Tom

[jdaw1]

The competent are difficult to stop. But don’t forget that the world is awash with idiots.

[Glenn E.]

I believe that, many years ago, the Secret Service as much as admitted that they could not protect the President from someone who was willing to give his or her life. The only reason security works is because the criminals aren't fully commited to their cause and wish to live through it themselves (presumably to bask in the adolation of their comrades). The reason I remember reading about this is that shortly thereafter, John Hinckley Jr. shot Ronald Reagan but failed.

As witnessed by 9/11, fully committed terrorism is virtually impossible to stop.

The 3-1-1 liquid rules are hogwash anyway. Determination and a decent high school education is all that is required to bring down an airplane with 3 separate ounces of otherwise harmless liquids. (Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not by much.)

[RonnieRoots]

Good to read that these silly policies are going to end in the near future. Makes live a bit easier. Thanks for posting this Julian.

[JacobH]

AT X-Ray software will be advanced enough to tell the difference between threat and non-threat but not yet proven to tell the difference when it is hidden in a bag.
[!]
AT X-Ray will have upgraded software that is proven to detect threat liquids in any configuration and is deployed in enough places so that TSA can change the rules to meet one uniform standard for the country.

One wonders what the ‟upgrade” in the X-Ray software will be? My understanding was that the binary liquid explosives that these restrictions are supposed to protect us against have not yet been developed in such a way that they can be successfully ignited in flight conditions, meaning that most liquids are fairly safe as long as no form of ignition is taken on board.