Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

What new information has caused the ban on liquids on planes?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11 August 2006, 04:39 PM
  #31  
Sbradley
Scooby Regular
 
Sbradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by brihoppy
would you like to be on an airbus or 737 when one of the engines, which is attached to what is essentially a giant fuel tank, explodes...?!
No. I specifically said I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end...

Originally Posted by brihoppy
and as for catastrophic mid-air failures, these are what bring aircraft down in normal flight arent they, im sure a rocket attack would be pretty catastrophic...? what about the c-130 that was brought down in iraq...might have been small arms, hmg or manpad but theyre over engineered to buggary and they still got that...!
Sadly Whitehall decided our C130s didn't need armoured fuel cells or the fire supression systems fitted as standard to civilian aircraft. So a AAA hit in the wing tank (which is what the report suggests happened) will basically guarantee a fire and resultant critical failure sooner or later.

Originally Posted by brihoppy
also, didnt the cia, bless them, equip the mujahadeen with stinger manpads...? how many of them have found their way to al qaeda...?
Yes they did, but a Stinger won't stop a 747 or an Airbus, as I said in the earlier post. Launcheers supplied then will probably also have flat batteries (not as easy to deal with as you may think) and had an even smaller warhead than the current version.

Plus Stinger is notoriously ineffective in the forward arc of the target, despite the PR to the contrary, so you need to tailchase which means the target is already airborne and outside the critical phase. Once you've got some height you can trade for energy then you can get away with a hell of a lot...

Not dismissing the thread completely, but it needs to be taken in perspective...

SB
Old 11 August 2006, 04:49 PM
  #32  
Apparition
Scooby Regular
 
Apparition's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Between the Fens and the Wolds.
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Does no one feel the slightest bit grateful that these ..........I won't call them people.....were aprehended before they were able to carry out their atrocities?
I can't help but envisage the resulting carnage ,if they hadn't been stopped.
I for one feel immensly grateful to our police etc for a job well done.
Yve
Old 11 August 2006, 04:53 PM
  #33  
Sbradley
Scooby Regular
 
Sbradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yve, I think (hope) that goes without saying.

But well said anyway

SB
Old 11 August 2006, 04:59 PM
  #34  
sti-04!!
Scooby Senior
 
sti-04!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Passing ...............
Posts: 13,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I am flying to Malaga tomorrow, i was meant to fly from Glasgow to Heathrow & then onto Malaga. I managed to change my plans to fly from Prestwick to Dublin then from Dublin to Malaga, its going to add a few hours onto my journey but i feel safer for doing it.
I just cant believe that these people exist, dirty terrorist scum
Old 11 August 2006, 05:07 PM
  #35  
OllyK
Scooby Regular
 
OllyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Apparition
Does no one feel the slightest bit grateful that these ..........I won't call them people.....were aprehended before they were able to carry out their atrocities?
I can't help but envisage the resulting carnage ,if they hadn't been stopped.
I for one feel immensly grateful to our police etc for a job well done.
Yve
Providing they come up with more evidence than they did with the Notting Hill group - sure.
Old 11 August 2006, 06:22 PM
  #36  
brihoppy
Scooby Regular
 
brihoppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sbradley
No. I specifically said I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end...



Sadly Whitehall decided our C130s didn't need armoured fuel cells or the fire supression systems fitted as standard to civilian aircraft. So a AAA hit in the wing tank (which is what the report suggests happened) will basically guarantee a fire and resultant critical failure sooner or later.



Yes they did, but a Stinger won't stop a 747 or an Airbus, as I said in the earlier post. Launcheers supplied then will probably also have flat batteries (not as easy to deal with as you may think) and had an even smaller warhead than the current version.

Plus Stinger is notoriously ineffective in the forward arc of the target, despite the PR to the contrary, so you need to tailchase which means the target is already airborne and outside the critical phase. Once you've got some height you can trade for energy then you can get away with a hell of a lot...

Not dismissing the thread completely, but it needs to be taken in perspective...

SB
got to give you some credit for your reply there sb...whered you get that kind of gen...?!

i know sams are over rated, especially after the last gulf war...we could hear the patriots launching at the scuds coming into kuwait and we felt pretty good about it until we found out how many had actually missed...?!

Old 11 August 2006, 06:46 PM
  #37  
speedking
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
speedking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

So to restate the question.

We should have known about this type of risk previously. We had no countermeasures in place. Now that some potential perpetrators have been apprehended (reducing the risk) we have implemented a great deal of additional security. Why?
Old 11 August 2006, 07:27 PM
  #38  
brihoppy
Scooby Regular
 
brihoppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by speedking
So to restate the question.

We should have known about this type of risk previously. We had no countermeasures in place. Now that some potential perpetrators have been apprehended (reducing the risk) we have implemented a great deal of additional security. Why?
rearrange these words to make a popular phrase...

horse, after, the, door, bolted, stable, lock, the, has...
Old 11 August 2006, 08:29 PM
  #39  
Sbradley
Scooby Regular
 
Sbradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Brihoppy, I'm an ex pilot and still do consultancy work in that area... I guess I do have a certain degree of inside info.

Won't stop SN experts from knowing more, of course

SB
Old 11 August 2006, 08:50 PM
  #40  
mart360
Scooby Regular
 
mart360's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

so what about the stuff you buy airside? or is that now taboo! in which case theres going to be an awfull lot of redundant people very soon..

prehaps we ought to have muslim only flights. that way should they decide to grab the 40 tarts (modern woman see ) no one else is affected.

or better still, let them fly, serve them liquid explosives from the drinks trolley, and let them get on with it, give them marks for artistic merit, the most bits off in one pop etc. prehaps the hostess (who would be one of the 24) could give tips on what cocktails to mix, then they could turn it into a race. first one down wins? just think with the two pilots hell bent on going in, the explosives amatuers in the back, and the sas around the airport with sam missiles it would be bloody good viewing.. Sky could have the rights, and a video game in time for christmas


Mart
Old 11 August 2006, 09:16 PM
  #41  
brihoppy
Scooby Regular
 
brihoppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sbradley
Brihoppy, I'm an ex pilot and still do consultancy work in that area... I guess I do have a certain degree of inside info.

Won't stop SN experts from knowing more, of course

SB
ex military or civil out of interest...?
Old 11 August 2006, 11:01 PM
  #42  
Sbradley
Scooby Regular
 
Sbradley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Military. Helicopters (Sea King, Lynx and Wessex) in the Royal marines then consulting on all sorts of interesting stuff afterwards....

SB
Old 11 August 2006, 11:40 PM
  #43  
brihoppy
Scooby Regular
 
brihoppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Sbradley
Military. Helicopters (Sea King, Lynx and Wessex) in the Royal marines then consulting on all sorts of interesting stuff afterwards....

SB
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PetrolHeadKid
Driving Dynamics
10
05 October 2015 05:19 PM
fumbduck
Wheels, Tyres & Brakes
3
04 October 2015 07:27 PM
dpb
Non Scooby Related
14
03 October 2015 10:37 AM
toyney83
General Technical
10
02 October 2015 08:38 PM
the shreksta
General Technical
27
02 October 2015 03:20 PM



Quick Reply: What new information has caused the ban on liquids on planes?



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:02 PM.