I remember when they first installed a magnetometer in the Portland, Oregon airport. It was in the news. This was probably 1972 or early 1973.
I went with my family to pick an exchange student coming in from Equador. I told my school mates I was gonna take a big hunk of metal through in my pocket to see if this thing worked. I surmised it would have to be ferrous based to be detected. I was pretty sure I was going to be safe. I did and it did not chirp. The metal was a 1 pound ingot of Babbitt. So non magnetic. From: Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:29 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban Wikipedia has a couple of fun lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_attacks In 1970-1972 hijackings were an almost monthly occurrence. January 1973 is when the FAA started requiring security checkpoints. There were only 12 US flights hijacked in the 30 years following that. So I guess the security is useful in general, but where do you stop? The perfectly secure flight would require everyone to strip naked, submit to cavity search and full body x-ray, wear an airline provided gown for the duration of the flight, and put all of their belongings into a bomb proof cargo hold. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> To: af@afmug.com Sent: 4/25/2017 1:04:56 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban Went to Cornwall, England, bags went to Tucson. I realize Cornwall and Tucson sound alike and look alike when printed on the luggage tag... Took more than a few days to get them. From: Andy Trimmell Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:01 AM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban Can you imagine a compartment full of laptops of passengers being left behind like luggage always does? The shear thought of it makes me cringe. “im sorry sir your laptop was sent to LAX instead of IND, we’ll deliver it to your house in 3-5 business days” From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:40 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban Yeah I thought I'd read somewhere that they had intelligence about laptop batteries with explosives packed inside. Not an actual device on a plane, but someone building it. I'm not sure if it's worth all the fuss. I feel like someone is always going to find a way. ------ Original Message ------ From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com> To: "af" <af@afmug.com> Sent: 4/25/2017 12:15:02 PM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban That makes sense to me... a laptop battery seems like a pretty obvious, and simple place to hide explosives. On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: I am guessing it is a volumetric thing. Laptop batts are big enough to do some damage if they really are an explosive. Hard to tell the difference with an X ray machine if you do it right. Your cell phone likely has a similar or greater amount of processing power and communications ability. It has to be volumetric based. Are they blocking kindle/ipad/fire type devices? From: Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:01 AM To: af Subject: [AFMUG] OT: Airplane Carryon Electronics Ban We've been remarkably politics free, and I want to keep it that way. I know the answer to what I'm about to ask could devolve toward that direction. I'd prefer we don't go down that path. What I'm curious about is this: The US is implementing various bans on electronics larger than a cell phone being carried onboard the aircraft into the cabin. Today it's limited to a few countries, but it sounds like it's going to get expanded greatly. Note that this doesn't mean you can't take say a laptop with you, but instead that it has to be checked so it's in the luggage hold instead of accessible to you through the flight. So the question I have is what threat this is supposed to eliminate? The obvious concern is some sort of explosive making it's way into the passenger cabin, but a wireless trigger for an explosive device is so simple to rig nowadays that I don't think the physical separation of a potential terrorist from their explosive is going to make a bit of difference. I can think of several other potential threats, but with the way that they're implementing this ban, I sure can't see how any of them are affected. Especially since you can apparently carry your larger electronics all of the way to the gate, then have them gate check them to be returned to you airside at your destination. Does anyone have any ideas what threat they might be trying to eliminate? Personally, I'm far more concerned about the risk of a lithium battery fire in the cargo hold.... -- Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. Tel: 406-449-3345 | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, MT 59602 forre...@imach.com | http://www.packetflux.com
