No liquids on planes, yet

tauringhuang.

Posted by: Economist.com | LONDON
Categories: Airports Security
THE ending of the trial of eight British men for plotting to blow up passenger aircraft over the Atlantic has reignited debate in the country about aeroplane security. The prosecutors said the men had been preparing to make bombs by putting concentrated hydrogen peroxide inside conventional drinks bottles, but they were arrested in August 2006 before they could put any plans into action. Three have been found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder; but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of conspiracy to detonate explosives on aircraft.
After the arrests in 2006 all liquids were banned from hand luggage at British and American airports. The rules were later modified to allow liquids in 100ml containers, and these have since been copied in many countries. Virgin Atlantic has now called for the regulations to be reconsidered, as has BAA, which owns seven British airports. Today's Independent says the technology already exists to allow scanning machines to identify whether a liquid is dangerous or not. However, passengers will only be able to benefit from the technology once it has been rolled out across Britain's airports: only then is the government expected to lift the restrictions. Indeed, the Daily Telegraph claims the ban on liquids could stay for another five years.

That has to be the right course. Until widely available technology can detect a liquid bomb, the quantity of liquid a passenger can bring on board must be limited (smaller amounts are not, apparently, viable for making bombs). As a Department of Transport spokesman put it:

The court case has proven that a generic capability exists to create liquid bombs from domestic items. Aircraft could be vulnerable to such devices so we are right to continue to require restrictions for liquids carried as hand luggage. We are also right to require these restrictions internationally as, potentially, we are all at risk.