Heathrow scraps liquid container limit

2026-01-2319:38632818www.bbc.com

Heathrow says it has become the biggest airport to drop the limit after rolling out new high-tech scanners.

Katy AustinTransport correspondent

Getty Images Stock photo shows a person's hand moving along a grey tray containing personal items and a boarding pass including a clear plastic bag containing liquids, on a roller in an airport security zone.Getty Images

The switch to CT scanners means clear transparent bags are no longer needed at the airport

Passengers at Britain's biggest airport, Heathrow, can leave liquids in containers up to two litres in their bags while going through security, after it finally completed the rollout of new high-tech CT scanners.

Electronics such as laptops can also be left in luggage, while clear plastic bags for liquids no longer have to be used.

Heathrow now says it is the biggest airport in the world to have the new equipment fully rolled out across all its terminals.

But while it has become the largest airport to roll out the new high-tech scanners, it is far from the UK's first, with Gatwick, Edinburgh and Birmingham airports having upgraded to them in recent years and increased to a two-litre limit.

At most UK airports, passengers can keep liquid containers of up to 100ml in their luggage, without having to remove them and use clear plastic bags.

Bristol and Belfast airports have also raised their liquid limits to two litres.

However, other airports that have the new scanners installed are waiting for the green light from the Department for Transport (DfT) to raise the limit from 100ml.

A recent report by consumer group Which? found that the sensitivity of the new scanners being rolled out means that at some airports, more bag searches end up being carried out by hand after passing through them.

Heathrow said the scanners, which provide better images of cabin bags, could service "thousands of passengers an hour with significantly greater efficiency, while maintaining high safety and security standards".

The rule change only applies to flights leaving Heathrow, and passengers must check restrictions on luggage at the airports they are returning from before boarding flights to the UK.

The rollout of the new high-tech scanners across the UK has suffered a series of setbacks over the past few years.

Boris Johnson promised in 2019 that the rules about taking liquids through security in containers of no more than 100ml, inside plastics bags, would be scrapped by the end of 2022. The pandemic eventually put paid to that.

In December 2022, the Conservative government promised state-of-the-art scanning equipment would be installed in security lanes by June 2024 in the "biggest shake-up of airport security rules in decades".

Gatwick Airport A computed tomography (CT) scanner at Gatwick Airport with passengers queueing up to go through security.Gatwick Airport

A photo of a new computed tomography (CT) scanner at Gatwick

Then-Transport Secretary Mark Harper said the dominance of "tiny toiletry" was nearly over.

But, as it turned out, the June 2024 deadline was not achievable for the biggest airports - although a number of smaller ones, with fewer lanes to get sorted, did install the scanners in place before that date.

Then, on the evening of Friday 13 June, 2024, the government said those smaller airports who had already introduced the new scanners and dropped their 100ml liquids rules, must reinstate them. This triggered anger among airport operators.

The EU also announced a reversion to the 100ml rule in July that year.

There has since been a period of inconsistency. Last summer, the Transport Secretary was telling passengers to assume the 100ml rule still applied.

Heathrow chief executive Thomas Woldbye said the £1bn package of upgrades would mean passengers could spend "less time preparing for security and more time enjoying their journey".

Of the world's busiest 10 airports, Heathrow is the only one to have scrapped the 100ml rule for liquid containers on international flights.

A DfT spokesperson said: "Heathrow is the latest UK airport to complete its rollout of next-generation security equipment for passengers, helping ensure security checks remain robust and can be completed smoothly.

"Airports are responsible for the installation and operation of security equipment.

"Passengers should continue to check security requirements with airports before they travel and come prepared with liquids in containers no larger than 100ml in hand baggage unless advised otherwise."

The Advantage Travel Partnership, a network of travel agents, said airports setting their own timelines on the lifting of the 100ml cap has "led to confusion and frustration" and passengers have been "tripped up".

Chief executive Julia Lo Bue-Said said: "We would urge UK airports to work collectively with the government to ensure there is clear messaging around the rules to avoid confusion and delays where possible."


Read the original article

Comments

  • By jandrewrogers 2026-01-274:5864 reply

    This just adds confusion as to the purpose of all this.

    The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids. Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore. There has never been an industrial or military use, solids are simpler. Nonetheless, these explosives are easily accessible to a knowledgeable chemist like me.

    These explosives can be detected via infrared spectroscopy but that isn’t going to be happening to liquids in your bag. This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it. Some explosives notoriously popular with terror organizations can’t be detected. Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

    It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

    • By edm0nd 2026-01-275:1913 reply

      Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater.

      TSA Chief Out After Agents Fail 95 Percent of Airport Breach Tests

      "In one case, an alarm sounded, but even during a pat-down, the screening officer failed to detect a fake plastic explosive taped to an undercover agent's back. In all, so-called "Red Teams" of Homeland Security agents posing as passengers were able get weapons past TSA agents in 67 out of 70 tests — a 95 percent failure rate, according to agency officials."

      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-...

      • By fc417fc802 2026-01-278:129 reply

        I find it interesting to contrast this with my experience flying out of China. I was taken to a private room and shown the digital colored X-ray of my bag on which a box had been drawn around an empty lighter, I was asked to remove it myself and hand it over, and I went on my way. All in under 5 minutes, no pat down, no fuss, and no one physically rifled through my belongings. (Granted I was a tourist so that might well not be typical.)

        I'm not sure what their success rate is when tested by professionals but the experience definitely left me wondering WTF the deal with the TSA is.

      • By JasonADrury 2026-01-276:436 reply

        I routinely conceal large bottles of liquids on my person while going through airport security. I've probably gone through airport security in various places with a 1.5L bottle of water more than a hundred times now. Haven't been caught once, although of course the US-style scanners could presumably defeat this.

        Same with hot sauces, perfume and the occasional bottles of wine. I really don't like to travel with a checked-in luggage, so this is a frequent problem.

        Luckily I own lots of Rick Owens clothes with large hidden pockets.

      • By unclad5968 2026-01-275:432 reply

        > In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater.

        This matches my experience. I recently flew out of a small airport that flies 2 fairchild metro 23 turboprop planes up to 9 passengers. There were four TSA agents to check the 5 of us that were flying.

      • By morpheuskafka 2026-01-2712:364 reply

        > Correct. In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled.

        This is oft repeated, but as a federal job, the bar is at least slightly higher than those typical AlliedUniversal/Andy Frain/Etc mall cop guards you see all over the place. I have no doubt that many are incompetent, but I think it is a big unfair that it gets singled out as a "jobs program" given that the bar is on the floor industrywide for security.

        An interesting comparison would be FPS, which is the agency that does security checks for federal buildings, also under DHS same as TSA. They are armed despite many of them having an indoor only role (a few do patrol larger campuses outdoors). Thus, I suspect the requirements are somewhat higher. They are generally more thorough in my experience, except for one time where they did not notice one of my shoes got stuck and didn't go through the X ray, which is funny because they insist on all dress shoes being scanned as they have a tiny metal bar inside. The same shoes go through TSA just fine.

      • By bartread 2026-01-2711:591 reply

        I don’t think it’s just the TSA tbh.

        A couple of years before the pandemic I managed to make it all the way from London Heathrow to Auckland, New Zealand, passing through Dubai and Brisbane on the way, with one of those USB rechargeable plasma lighters and a Gerber multitool in my hand luggage.

        Completely unintentional, of course, but due to #reasons I had packed in some haste and made the mistake of not completely unpacking my day sack, which I also used to carry my laptop for work, first.

        I stayed in Auckland a couple of days and the items were eventually picked up on a scan before my flight to Queenstown. The guy was very nice about it: he had to confiscate the lighter, but he let me post the Multitool to my hotel in Queenstown.

        A couple of years ago I did something similar flying out of Stansted but, that time, it was picked up at the airport and, again, I was able to get the items posted back to my home address.

        Nowadays I always completely empty all compartments of all bags I’m taking before repacking, even when I’m in a hurry.

      • By PeterStuer 2026-01-279:27

        "In the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled. It's all security theater."

        Over here, it's G4S pork barrel contracts.

      • By lostlogin 2026-01-277:062 reply

        > the US, the TSA is just a government jobs program for the lowly skilled or unskilled.

        I thought that was the US military?

      • By ascagnel_ 2026-01-2713:57

        I'd believe that. I was in a situation where a bag started smoking _in the security checkpoint_ (it was a camera battery failing), and the TSA agents all abandoned the checkpoint. As a result, the FAA issued a full ground stop and had re-screen every passenger in the airport.

      • By vablings 2026-01-2715:55

        TSA Is not great, I have been groped by TSA twice, I have never been pat down by any European airport staff

      • By schaefer 2026-01-2715:181 reply

        > It's all security theater.

        It’s so much worse than that. Because the department of homeland security was formed in the panic following 911, many of the laws meant to protect our civil liberties (which have existed decades/centuries before the DHS was formed) haven’t been amended to explicitly apply to DHS staff as well.

        So what ICE is doing right now could only happen with the loopholes that apply only to DHS staff.

        So if not for the security theater of the TSA, Stephan Miller might not have had a mechanism to get the ball rolling on his murder squad that is ICE.

      • By dboreham 2026-01-278:58

        TSA is much more skilled than the security people employed by the airlines that proceeded them.

      • By ec109685 2026-01-2714:14

        Any large organization is going to have some terrible employees.

      • By aiisjustanif 2026-01-275:521 reply

        While still theatre to a degree, that was 11 years ago.

    • By kstenerud 2026-01-276:2019 reply

      It's about making people feel safe.

      We're not rational beings, so what do you do about an irrational fear? You invent a magical thing that protects from that irrational fear.

      You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more.

      You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline?

      So you invent some theater to stop people from panicking (a far more real danger). And that's a perfectly acceptable solution.

      • By dingaling 2026-01-277:144 reply

        > It's about making people feel safe.

        I don't think that's a common perception of airport security. Few people take reassurance from it, most consider it a burden and hindrance that could stop them getting their flight if they don't perform the correct steps as instructed.

        The lifting of this restriction is an example, the overwhelming response is "oh thank goodness, now I don't have to pay for overpriced water" and not "is this safe?"

      • By WalterBright 2026-01-276:392 reply

        > You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more.

        This can be traced to people in a car believe they can control whether they have an accident or not (and largely can). In an airplane, however, you have no control whatsoever.

      • By stephen_g 2026-01-2711:271 reply

        A lot more people I've talked to about it say the theatre makes them feel uncomfortable and intimidated rather than making them feel safe. Airport security staff being so gruff and expecting people to know what to do (which casual travellers often don't), then not being able to properly explain what to do and shouting at people...

        I really don't buy that the illusion of safety is high on anyone's priority list, it's more that a bureaucracy will grow as much as it can, employing more and more people who might not have better prospects, and no politicians want to be seen to be "comprimising people's safety" by cutting things back. Then "lobbying" from those selling equipment and detection machines probably helps everything keep going.

        If it was actually cut back to a proper risk-assessed point of what's strictly necessary, people going thorugh would think "is this safe not having as much security" for about 30 seconds and then never think of it again.

      • By wickedsight 2026-01-277:221 reply

        > It's about making people feel safe.

        My guess it's more about being able to say: 'We did everything we could.' If someone does end up getting a bomb on board. If they didn't do this, everyone would be angry and headlines would be asking: 'Why was nothing put in place to prevent this?'

      • By kakacik 2026-01-279:14

        I know literally nobody panicking from some idea of terrorist attack against airplane, this is not a thing in Europe. Neither my old parents, neither any of my colleagues etc. Its not 2001 anymore and even back then we were mostly chill.

        But I can claim one thing for sure - people hate security checks with passion.

      • By acdha 2026-01-2713:071 reply

        > It's about making people feel safe.

        I think this is true but had to be seen in the bigger context: the Bush administration wanted people to feel that there were threats which required sacrificing things like civil liberties, balanced budgets, or not being at war because if you didn’t fight them “over there” the nebulous “they” come here in a never-ending swarm. Even at the time we knew that the threats weren’t serious but the people making those decisions saw it as part of a larger agenda.

      • By peyton 2026-01-276:31

        It’s a $12 bn/yr production. I don’t think that’s perfectly acceptable. Let’s invest in loudspeakers if all we’re doing is shouting at people.

      • By afh1 2026-01-2710:47

        The government who wages the wars and brings its terrors home invades people's privacy and comfort in the small amount of time they have away from the toll they put to pay their taxes, and the people are thankful, after all, all of it is for their safety.

      • By andrepd 2026-01-2712:31

        > You're orders of magnitude more likely to die in a road accident, but people don't fear that. They fear terrorist attacks far more.

        On the contrary, a competent and responsible government should counter the hysteria, not enable it. It should protect citizens from car crashes rather than making a 18-lane highways through residential areas, and it should implement effective measures that reduce effective risk and panic regarding airline attacks, instead of pushing the fear even further with TSA.

      • By closewith 2026-01-276:542 reply

        > You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality - short of forcing everyone to travel naked and strapped in like cattle, with no luggage. And even then, what about the extremist who works for the airline?

        This is said as an axiom, but we have protected against the motivated terrorist, as shown by the safety record.

      • By k2enemy 2026-01-2715:25

        > It's about making people feel safe.

        I think it is the opposite. It is supposed to be a visceral reminder that we are not safe, and therefore should assent to the erosion of civil liberties and government intrusions into our lives in the name of safety.

      • By troupo 2026-01-277:221 reply

        > You can't protect against an opponent who's motivated to learn the inherent vulnerabilities of our systems, many of which can't be protected against due to the laws of physics and practicality

        Ah yes, the insidious opponent who learns the inherent vulnerability of ... huge crowds gathering before hand baggage screenings and TSA patdowns.

        And these crowds are only there only due to a permanent immovable physical fixture of ... completely artificial barriers that fail to prevent anything 90-95% of the time.

      • By moffkalast 2026-01-2710:531 reply

        Yeah as we've seen with MH370, literally nothing stops the pilot from committing mass-murder-suicide at any point. We just need to trust that they're not feeling particularly depressed that day.

      • By grishka 2026-01-279:22

        Airport security never makes me feel safe. It makes me feel violated and anxious.

        I haven't really flown before 9/11, but I have used the subway in my city daily both before and after they installed metal detectors and started randomly asking people to put their bags through a scanner. I'm deeply nostalgic for not having to deal with this utter bullshit.

      • By NL807 2026-01-2712:101 reply

        >It's about making people feel safe.

        It adds stress. I fondly remember flying in the 80s vs today. Travelling back then was more chill.

      • By graemep 2026-01-279:22

        It reminds be of how after a fire at a tube station a lot of people decided to commute by motorbike because of fear of fire.

      • By BrenBarn 2026-01-277:021 reply

        I seriously doubt that most people are happy with the tradeoffs of safety vs. convenience provided by the TSA. The general idea of x-ray, metal detectors, sure, that's all good. But the stuff with taking off your shoes, small containers of liquid, etc., no. I think if we reverted to a simpler system with fewer oddly specific requirements layered on top, most people would not feel significantly less safe, but would feel less inconvenienced.

      • By tastyfreeze 2026-01-2719:07

        > It's about making people feel safe.

        It doesn't make me feel safe. It makes me annoyed. Since TSA are government agents it also pokes a tyranny button for me. I despise TSA with a passion and there is not a damn thing I can do about it. They also have the gall to offer a paid service to get around the delays they cause with taxpayer money. If airport security checkpoints need to be done it shouldn't be government doing it.

      • By ghm2199 2026-01-2715:08

        One man's fear of safety is another man's job safety.

    • By davedx 2026-01-278:046 reply

      On one hand, I think it's a valid criticism to say it's security theatre, to a degree. After 9/11, something had to be done, fast!, and we're still living with the after effects of that.

      On the other hand: defence in depth. No security screening is perfect. Plastic guns can get through metal detectors but we still use them. Pat downs at nightclubs won't catch a razor blade concealed in someone's bra. We try to catch more common dangerous items with the knowledge that there's a long tail of things that could get through. There's nothing really new there, I don't think?

      • By ubermonkey 2026-01-2714:36

        Lots has been written about this.

        The post-9/11 freakout is a GREAT example of the syllogism "Something must be done! This is something, so we must do it!" -- IOW, a train of thought that includes absolutely no evaluation of efficacy.

        Security expert Bruce Schneier noted, I believe, that the only things that came out of the post-9/11 freakout that mattered were (a) the reinforced cockpit door and (b) ensuring all the checked bags go with an actual passenger.

        The ID requirement, for example, was a giveaway to the airlines to prevent folks from selling frequent-flier tickets (which was absolutely a common thing back then). (And wouldn't have mattered on 9/11 anyway, since all the hijackers had valid ID.)

      • By ghm2199 2026-01-2715:16

        One little know crazier example of how things linger around for decades is how the H1B program actually allowed for renewals of visa stamps within the US.

        After 9/11 the only reason people were made to go to another country to do it is because the US State department wanted people 10 printed and face scanned at places that had the equipment to do them: the embassies outside the US.

        Now all airlines are basically human cattle-herding boxes at 35K feet for the metaphorical H1B cows.

      • By dfxm12 2026-01-2714:46

        That something could have been lawmakers going on major media saying, unequivocally, that flying is safe, warning not to give away freedoms lightly and even making a show of flying commercial themselves.

        That something didn't have to include trading freedom for surveillance/inconvenience/increased exposure to poorly trained LEO's.

        The world we live has been shaped more and more by the funders of certain politicians and major media to make us fearful of boogiemen. The payoff is increased surveillance and more authoritarian governments.

      • By croisillon 2026-01-279:44

        to nitpick, the 100ml rule doesn't come from 9/11 but from 2006 attack attempts

      • By mrguyorama 2026-01-2722:35

        There were plenty at the time insisting it was not needed, that TSA was an overreaction, that it was clearly grift to people connected to the Bush Admin, that we don't need to do anything even. They all pointed out that DHS was clearly an internal anti-dissent force, to be used against american citizens for daring to critique a government of grift and lies and authoritarianism taking away our rights.

        They were all decried as "anti-american" or worse epithets.

        They were all correct of course.

        They are all being decried again right now.

        It was literally called "The Patriot Act" FFS. You really think it was about security?

        Note that the reason none of the passengers were ever able to regain control of the planes was the exact security measure that actually protects us now: The cockpit door. It literally doesn't matter what happens in the plane cabin, nobody can hijack a plane in the current system.

        Again, TSA currently cannot catch someone going through security with plastic explosives, in their own self tests.

    • By hackingonempty 2026-01-276:052 reply

      > The motivation behind the liquid limits is that there are extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids.

      The limits were instituted after discovering a plot to smuggle acetone and hydrogen peroxide (and ice presumably) on board to make acetone peroxide in the lavatory. TATP is not a liquid and it is not stable.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl...

      • By jandrewrogers 2026-01-276:281 reply

        This illustrates a point though. TATP you could synthesize on a plane is entirely inadequate to bring down a plane. It also requires a bit more than acetone and hydrogen peroxide. Pan Am 103 required around half a kilo of RDX and TATP is very, very far from RDX.

        The idea of synthesizing a proper high-explosive in an airplane lavatory is generally comical. The chemistry isn’t too complex but you won’t be doing it in an airplane lavatory.

      • By piglatinlingo 2026-01-2713:11

        there are other, very similar compounds in the same family that are indeed liquid.

    • By scq 2026-01-275:132 reply

      From my understanding, the new CT machines are able to characterise material composition using dual-energy X-ray, and this is how they were able to relax the rules.

      • By jandrewrogers 2026-01-275:383 reply

        I am not up-to-date on the bleeding edge but that explanation doesn’t seem correct? The use of x-rays in analytical chemistry is for elemental analysis, not molecular analysis. (There are uses for x-rays in crystallography that but that is unrelated to this application.)

        At an elemental level, the materials of a suitcase are more or less identical to an explosive. You won’t easily be able to tell them apart with an x-ray. This is analogous to why x-ray assays of mining ores can’t tell you what the mineral is, only the elements that are in the minerals.

        FWIW, I once went through an airport in my travels that took an infrared spectra of everyone’s water! They never said that, I recognized the equipment. I forget where, I was just impressed that the process was scientifically rigorous. That would immediately identify anything weird that was passed off as water.

      • By dbbk 2026-01-2711:12

        Yes. The first step was upgrading to the new machines, now the size limits can be relaxed.

    • By iambateman 2026-01-2714:39

      Not a chemist…but if someone can carry on 3 bottles at 3.4 ounces each, now they have 10 ounces.

      Two people do it and it’s 20 ounces. All within the “TSA Standard.”

      This is where the liquid limit never made sense to me…if we were serious about keeping these substances off of planes, we would limit the total liquid…right? Or require that any liquids get checked.

      I just don’t see how per-bottle liquid limits are anything close to deterrent for motivated attackers…but they sure are deterrent for me when I forget that I put a hotel water bottle in my bag.

    • By altern8 2026-01-278:271 reply

      I'm fine with some liquid potentially being explosives, but the fact that security just throws them all in the same bin when they confiscate them makes me think that not even they believe it makes any sense.

      Also, why 100ml? Do you need 150ml to make the explosive? Couldn't there be 2 terrorists with 100ml + 50ml? All these questions, so little answers...

      • By Krssst 2026-01-2717:251 reply

        Liquids are not explosive, they are assumed to be used to make explosives once onboard.

        Regarding quantity, hard to find information, I guess they don't want to have a terrorist handbook to making explosives online, but I would assume that 100ml would mean multiple times this amount would not be enough to make an explosive large enough bring down an airplane.

        In general, considering the overall cost of the measures, I would think that there is a valid reason and that "it does not make sense at first glance so it's just a security theater" does not hold.

    • By breppp 2026-01-276:594 reply

      most of airport security rests on the notion of going over a series of long tests will elicit unusual (fear, stress) responses from malicious actors and these can then be flagged for even thorougher checks which will then eventually lead to discovery, banning or removal of luggage

      so it's not the test accuracy by itself but rather then the fact that these tests are happening at all

      • By wedog6 2026-01-278:292 reply

        You have surprising faith that the system is well designed.

        Malicious actors don't get as stressed as normal people who don't want to miss their flight about the long series of obviously pointless tests. Why would they?

        And there isn't anyone who surveils the queues and takes the worried looking for further checks. This can happen around immigration checks. It happens for flights to Israel. But not in routine airport security.

      • By marcosdumay 2026-01-2715:44

        > going over a series of long tests will elicit unusual (fear, stress) responses from malicious actors

        Oh, man. Let me tell you what kind of response going over a series of long tests by armed authority figures elicits on normal good-intended people...

      • By KingMob 2026-01-278:501 reply

        This kind of thinking is as legitimate as believing lie detectors work, i.e., not at all.

      • By pcl 2026-01-279:52

        {{citation needed}}

    • By omnicognate 2026-01-277:301 reply

      > Average people have never heard of them because they aren’t in popular lore.

      Everything I know about liquid explosives I learned from Die Hard 3.

      • By misnome 2026-01-279:17

        Funnily enough, that’s also all the people who made the rules in the first place knew

    • By HNisCIS 2026-01-275:511 reply

      OP is talking about (mostly) TATP here. It's very easy to make, harder to detect with traditional methods and potent enough to be a problem. It's also hilariously unstable, will absolutely kill you before you achieve terrorism, and if you ask people on the appropriate chemistry subreddits how to make it you'll be ridiculed for days.

      • By jandrewrogers 2026-01-276:10

        Yes, peroxide chemistries famously don’t show up on a lot of explosive scans. TATP is an example but not the only one and far from the best one. They are largely missing from common literature because they are too chemically reactive to be practical e.g. they will readily chemically interact with their environment, including most metal casings you might put them in, such that they become non-explosive.

        That aside, TATP is a terrible explosive. Weak, unstable, and ineffective. The ridicule is well-deserved.

    • By fooker 2026-01-277:381 reply

      These liquids show up as slightly different colors in the new CT scan machines and this can finally be reliably detected by software.

      This is also why a bunch of airports no longer ask you to take electronics out of your bags.

    • By largbae 2026-01-2714:56

      It was always theater, Bruce Schneier did a great set of blogs and tests back in the 2001+ time showing flaws throughout the process. At the same time, he pointed out that humanity had already adapted their response to airplane hijackings _that day_ (the Pennsylvania flight). An airplane exploding from a bomb is definitely scary, but not as scary as airplanes being turned into missiles by a few suicidal passengers.

    • By vkou 2026-01-275:48

      > . This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it.

      Meanwhile, you get swabbed, the machine produces a false positive, the TSA drone asks you why the machine is showing a positive, you have no fucking idea why, and they just keep swabbing until they get a green light and everyone moves on with life.

    • By avisser 2026-01-2715:571 reply

      After 4 years of Russia/Ukraine, does anyone think that a terror group would take down an airliner with anything other than a drone? Why take any operational risk of actually going through security?

      • By ErroneousBosh 2026-01-2719:03

        The fact that nobody has flown a drone with a hand grenade gaffa taped to it right into the middle of some politician's security cordon says to me that either a) terrorists are not smart enough to go for the low-hanging fruit (and the Republican terrorism in NI demonstrates this isn't the case), b) it's actually a lot harder to do than that, or c) the intelligence agencies are really, really good at stopping people from doing that, and even better at keeping quiet about it.

        I'm going with option C.

    • By Teever 2026-01-2713:38

      > This reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives. Those swipes can only detect a narrow set of explosive chemistries and everyone knows it. Some explosives notoriously popular with terror organizations can’t be detected. Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

      I used to work at a place that sold a lot of fertilizers. We mostly sold stuff like Monoammonium phosphate or potassium nitrate.

      One time while cleaning out a back storage room I came across an open bag of ammonium nitrate. I picked that thing up, carried it around, putting it on a cart and wheeling it around kicking up a lot of dust, all the kinds of stuff that you’d expect while cleaning out a storage room.

      A day or so later I got on a plane and they swabbed me and my bag before doing so. I was startled when I didn’t raise any alarms.

      I was completely under the misguided impression they something like ammonium nitrate would be detected on a person if they had handled it within a few days of being tested and that would have to explain myself.

    • By CorrectHorseBat 2026-01-276:283 reply

      So how does that explain I can take 10 100ml bottles and an empty 1l bottle through security but not 1 full 1l bottle?

      • By WalterBright 2026-01-276:431 reply

        The same reason used for WA emissions inspections (since suspended). If your tailpipe emitted 99ppm of pollutants, you were good to go. If it emitted 100ppm, you had to get it fixed.

        Good ole step functions.

      • By opello 2026-01-277:531 reply

        You have to be able to fit those 10 100mL bottles into a single 1 quart resealable bag. At most you'd probably get about 9.46 of those 10 bottles in the bag but in practice it's fewer still.

        1 US liquid quart is about 946.353 milliliters.

      • By gizzlon 2026-01-276:45

        You can't, at least not where I live

    • By account42 2026-01-2712:13

      If those explosives are extremely powerful then do the limits actually prevent using them to do damage inside an airplane though? TSA isn't even effective at preventing you from bringing on sharp metal objects as long as they aren't particularly knife shaped.

    • By pseudohadamard 2026-01-287:23

      The motivation was that we've run out of other things to scaremonger about so we'll come up with what Bruce Schneier calls movie-plot threats and go with those instead. The few explosives that are liquid are also incredibly impractical to work with in most cases except for perhaps perchloric acid which is nitrogen-free so won't be detected but then persuading that to detonate from a seat in economy class is going to be quite a feat.

      The country I'm in abolished the liquids nonsense for domestic flights (which they can do because it's domestic travel) around a decade ago with the reasoning that it wasn't serving any purpose.

    • By randusername 2026-01-2717:42

      I would not be surprised if this started out totally unrelated to explosives. Say that some toddler spilled an entire 3 liters of grape soda all over the plane. Or a hypochondriac brought cleaning agents aboard and gave everyone a headache.

      Mostly sarcasm, but man do I see this pattern a lot. The risk mitigation apparatus is called in for something, they see an opportunity to overgeneralize and prevent an entire new category of potential mishaps, and the everyday folk end up really confused trying to reconcile the rules with their intent.

      Reminds me of the parable about the bench guards. Is there an aphorism for this?

    • By meroes 2026-01-2715:40

      Are these chemicals freezable? Because TSA lets through large quantities frozen matter that is liquid at room temp. E.g. you can bring through a liter of hot sauce if it's frozen when it passes through TSA.

    • By contingencies 2026-01-275:161 reply

      Ahh, the naïvety of the scientific mind! The security theater is intended to prevent government beaurocrats' mates from having to get real jobs and keep them happily sponging off public money. Also, set themselves up for post-career high paid gigs with those same private sector beneficiaries, so they can't be done for corruption during their career. Yes, really. Ask an AI about mid to late career public sector transitions to private sector and cross-examine 100 top examples across markets perceived as 'low corruption index'.

      • By boomskats 2026-01-275:51

        You mean Tony didn't really make £20m in his first year out of office from just giving speeches? I mean, that's what his tax return says?

        You, sir, are a _conspiracy theorist_. Don't let that rotating door catch you on the way back in.

    • By jalapenos 2026-01-2711:17

      I assume the logic was:

      1) People demand the government be accountable for their failing to protect them

      2) Government responds by increased giving the appearance of protecting them, since that creates more lowest-common-denominator sense of feeling safe than the government actually protecting them does; votes protected

      3) Complaints of "security theatre" don't alter the above - they just have to wait until people have forgotten their fear while very slowly, bit by bit, without it being noticed, stop doing the nonsense

      Or put simply: "terrorists win"

    • By helterskelter 2026-01-2715:332 reply

      I remember reading something around the time these prohibitions against liquids were rolled out that said none of the two-part liquid explosives were powerful enough to take down a plane unless you were carrying an unusual amount of liquid to be traveling with, or storing your liquid in an unusual way. For instance, there should be no reason you couldn't carry an ordinary sized bottle of shampoo in your luggage. No idea how accurate this is, maybe somebody could set this straight?

      • By jandrewrogers 2026-01-2716:47

        Explosives that are inert liquid binaries aren't really a thing. That is something Hollywood invented out of whole cloth. The chemistry of explosives doesn't lend itself to such a form.

        Chemical weapons often have liquid binary forms though.

      • By CGMthrowaway 2026-01-2715:38

        >powerful enough to take down a plane

        Is that the criteria used for restrictions? I don't actually know. I guess a firearm falls into that category. Does a wine corkscrew? A foam toy sword? A small fishhook? All items that are prohibited in the cabin

    • By wbl 2026-01-275:092 reply

      Won't asking people to take a swig solve a bunch of those issues?

      • By jandrewrogers 2026-01-275:151 reply

        This was done! It created terrible publicity incidents like the TSA forcing women to drink their own breast milk to prove it was safe. And not all liquids subject to this are things a person should swig even if they aren’t explosives. The extremely negative PR rightly stopped this practice.

      • By jrockway 2026-01-275:101 reply

        People travel with liquids they don't intend to eat. Shampoo and all that.

        There is also nothing that precludes explosives from being non-toxic. Presumably your demise is near if you are carrying explosives through security. What do you care about heavy metal poisoning at that point?

    • By tehjoker 2026-01-2717:16

      It's designed to protect consumer confidence so the economy hums along. A single plane is a few hundred people, but the effects ripple out. This is a big country, you need air travel to make it reasonable to connect the coasts, and the more people traveling the more cohesive and economically balanced the country is. They were fine with letting 1M+ Americans die from COVID to protect the economy. That's really all there is to it.

    • By ubermonkey 2026-01-2714:32

      If I recall correctly, it was WIDELY reported by sane, savvy people that no such liquid agents existed that could be combined onboard in this way.

      Are there examples you can point to?

    • By AndrewThrowaway 2026-01-278:13

      I believe the "theater" is needed precisely for this - to catch bad actors. There could just be a long queue with some blind dog and scary looking guy at the end. What it still does is makes a bad guy sweat, plan against it and etc. You just can't have free entrance for all. However you will never prevent state actors or similar with any kind of theatre because they will always prepare for it.

    • By shevy-java 2026-01-2712:49

      > It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

      That is a good statement. It IS a theater. So, the point for it IS the theater. The "evil terrorists" is just the scapegoat wrapper, similar to how officials in the EU constantly try to extend mass surveillance and claim it is to "protect children".

    • By KaiserPro 2026-01-279:45

      > extremely powerful explosives that are stable water-like liquids.

      My understanding is that those are detected by the bag swabs.

      I _thought_ that this was to stop people mixing their own explosives _on_ the plane? There was a whole court case in the UK about how people had smuggled it onboard and then were going to make it in the toilet.

      They would need and ice bath, which is somewhat impractical.

    • By HWR_14 2026-01-2714:55

      > It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

      The liquids requirement was in response to a famous (at the time) plot by people in Britain to smuggle a two part liquid explosive onto the plane. So the context was, at the time, obvious and needed no explanation.

    • By butvacuum 2026-01-2816:02

      Is it really unclear what the theater is actually for? It was immediately weaponized that any opposition placed you somewhere between 'anti-american' and a 'terrorist'. A perfect environment to pass any legislation, no matter how ineffectual and illegal.

    • By bawolff 2026-01-277:20

      I thought the point of replacing all the xray scanners with CT scanners was to be able to detect this sort of thing?

    • By Zigurd 2026-01-2713:38

      If you have access to nitric acid you don't need any obscure lore. 3 ounces of a simple concoction a high school chemistry student could make is enough to blow a hole in an airplane. You also stand a good chance of blowing yourself up on the way to the airport.

    • By lordloki 2026-01-2715:32

      Is the capability of these explosives at a safe level if the liquid precursors are less than 3.5 fl ounces? If they are still capable of blowing a hole in the fuselage with less than 3.5 fl ounces then the limits on fluids are still pointless.

    • By pushedx 2026-01-2711:27

      One theory that I've had for a while with regards to the no liquid policy is that it was somehow introduced by the food vendors on the other side of security, who want you to buy a drink and some food after you pass through.

    • By ortusdux 2026-01-2715:31

      Modern airport x-ray machines use two frequencies and then estimate the density of objects and liquids. In theory, the can tell the difference between water and vodka. I wonder if the change reflects trust in this tech?

    • By cromka 2026-01-2717:17

      So, security through obscurity mostly as a smoke show for the public, not actual terrorist countermeasure. It's like the TSA being unable to detect most traditional weapon in carry-ons. Business as usual it seems.

    • By Ntrails 2026-01-2712:16

      Maybe I'm being naive, but it has always seemed pretty trivial to me to use the post-security shops to assemble something that will meaningfully damage the aircraft - so the whole thing smacked of theatre.

    • By wouldbecouldbe 2026-01-2710:042 reply

      Schiphol at Amsterdam had this for a year or so, you could bring any type of liquid and leave everything in the bag. But they reverted the liquid rule, if I remember correctly, because of the confusion it caused.

      • By tirant 2026-01-2710:33

        This happened due to a change in regulation in Europe.

        Some airports, like AMS or MUC, invested on new machines with higher detection capabilities, and decided to allow all liquids and improve efficiency in boarding. The EU updated the rules claiming those new machines were still not sufficient and airports should go back to forbidding liquids.

        It was a mess. I remember flying from MUC and being allowed all liquids and on my return flight, also from EU, when trying to fly with a normal water bottle, security people looked at me wondering what the f I was doing: "Don't you know liquids are not allowed, sir!?"

      • By retired 2026-01-2711:40

        Schiphol has been very relaxed. I once had a water bottle with probably 200ml of water still in it in my bag. I was told to not do that again and they gave me the bottle back.

    • By duskdozer 2026-01-278:57

      Security theater and conditioning people into accepting invasions of privacy

    • By SanjayMehta 2026-01-275:15

      Security theatre.

      And speaking of theatre in the air, most Indian airlines will make an announcement of turbulence just before food service starts.

      This is to make the sheep - strike that - passengers go back to their seats and sit down.

    • By CTDOCodebases 2026-01-276:172 reply

      The security theatre is there to make people feel safe.

      It's about emotion not logic.

      • By xxs 2026-01-279:13

        ...or be very anxious and resent air travel. I don't feel any safe through body searches, coupled with belt/coat removal, not wearing glasses and what not.

        Personally, I don't know a single person who feels more secure due to the checks.

      • By Fervicus 2026-01-277:10

        And to make some people richer.

    • By piokoch 2026-01-279:101 reply

      Well, I watched the video of some former Delta Force officer, who said that you can sharpen your credit card to make a deadly weapon out of it. Let's ban credit cards in the airplanes.

      • By xxs 2026-01-279:20

        Backpack can have metal reinforcements that would make a proper weapon too, Same broken glass bottles and what not.

        The entire point is futile and pointless.

    • By humanpotato 2026-01-2918:29

      Recently, I worked all day at an ammunition plant, then the next day got may hands swabbed by TSA. Nothing detected by the machine.

      Makes you wonder.

    • By 4gotunameagain 2026-01-276:57

      > Everyone, including the bad guys, knows all of this.

      Then satisfy our curiosity and provide more details as to which are the liquid explosives and which common ones are not detected ? ;)

    • By sschueller 2026-01-278:37

      Is a open flame enough to ignite those liquids and don't they need something to press against to "explode" and not just cause a giant flame like gasoline?

    • By wiredfool 2026-01-278:501 reply

      In Zurich, you can buy Swiss army knives in the secure zone.

      • By xxs 2026-01-279:102 reply

        That's ok - 6cm blades are allowed. You can also carry it in a cabin luggage anyways.

        realistically any broken glass bottle can be used as a blade.

    • By JumpCrisscross 2026-01-278:34

      > These explosives can be detected via infrared spectroscopy but that isn’t going to be happening to liquids in your bag

      There are more ways to find them. Look up Z score. TL; DR New detectors can discriminate water from explosives. Old ones couldn’t. None of them are doing IR spectroscopy.

    • By __alexs 2026-01-2713:06

      I think the idea is that the new scanners they have are capable detecting liquid densities better so that they can actually tell the difference now?

    • By tushar-r 2026-01-2713:07

      >is reminds me of the chemical swipes done on your bags to detect explosives.

      I've also had this done on my dialysis port at some airports here in India :-|

    • By aa-jv 2026-01-2710:11

      Its not just for explosives, by the way. Its also for solvents - for example, mercury, which could be used to weaken the airframe very easily.

    • By juliushuijnk 2026-01-2715:25

      They don't believe these liquids are actually dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't just throw them in a bin near the queue.

    • By JellyPlan 2026-01-275:111 reply

      I wonder if the improvements can detect trigger mechanisms better rather than testing the liquid itself.

      • By jandrewrogers 2026-01-275:18

        Sophisticated detonators are very small. The size is well below anything you’d be able to notice on an x-ray. Trying to detect detonators is an exercise in futility. Fortunately, a detonator by itself can’t do any damage.

    • By Xmd5a 2026-01-2713:31

      Israel strips you naked and rubs the swipe between your legs thoroughly. Source: friend.

    • By maxerickson 2026-01-2711:381 reply

      2 part liquid explosives featured heavily in Die Hard with a Vengeance.

    • By GorbachevyChase 2026-01-2722:15

      Why do you make a dog hold a treat on his nose?

    • By BrandoElFollito 2026-01-2819:03

      See, when the shoe bomber or the guys doing chemistry 101 in the toilets of the plane were discovered, they put a ban on liquids and almost shoes.

      I was hoping nobody comes out with an explosive you can build with cotton (and a nuclear reactor, but that would be a detail for the "security compliance" people who will come up with new restrictions). We would need to fly naked and this would be annoying.

      I sure like to fly a safe plane. The problem is that I am sure the people who actually want to do something bad will use, like you mentioned, alternative solutions - and I will not even have the nail file they took from me when trying to to defend the plane during the hijacking.

    • By kanbara 2026-01-277:52

      how does it add confusion?

      if normal people don’t know, criminals/terrorists do, and the materials are commonplace but not screened for, then everything about the current approach is wrong.

      and when has a plane been brought down by the evil explosives or stable liquids in recent memory?

      so the theatre put in place is just that, huh?

    • By yieldcrv 2026-01-275:27

      > It would be great if governments were more explicit about precisely what all of this theater is intended to prevent.

      Have you considered just going long Palantir?

      there's nothing to really understand

    • By amelius 2026-01-2714:02

      Because the theater raises the threshold.

    • By QuantumFunnel 2026-01-2720:54

      TSA has always been security theater

    • By teiferer 2026-01-279:351 reply

      And yet .. nothing ever seems to happen! Even though it's so easy.

      That means one of at least two things. Either the terrorists are stupid and easily impressed by the security theater. Or there are just not that many bad ombres out there trying to take down airplanes. Or something else I can't think of.

      Any thoughts?

    • By 7e 2026-01-276:591 reply

      It's obvious. The harder you make it to down or hijack a plane, the fewer downed planes you will see. It didn't have to be perfect to prevent and deter. Some security is better than no security. If you had no security at all you would see planes go down all the time.

      And it wouldn't surprise me if some of the detection technology were classified.

      It would not be "great" if governments were more open about their detection capabilities; that would cause more terrorism attempts and is one of the stupidest things one could do here.

  • By bleepblap 2026-01-275:165 reply

    there is actually a science change that happened, and it's not (entirely) just politicians changing their mind.

    The big thing going from X-ray (2d) to CT (spin an X-ray machine around and take a ton of pictures to recreate a 3d image) did a lot to let security people see inside of a bag, but the hitch is that if you see a blob of gray is that water, shampoo or something else?

    The recent advance that is letting this happen is machines who will send multiple wavelengths of X-ray through the material: since different materials absorb light differently, your machine can distinguish between materials, which lets you be more sure that that 2litre is (mostly) water, and then they can discriminate

    • By NL807 2026-01-2712:161 reply

      These machines don't really detect what kind of materials stuff is composed of, much of that is just a crude classification based on density. True identification requires broadband x-rays emission with spectral analysis.

    • By dingdongditchme 2026-01-279:312 reply

      it has been such a godsend flying out of Frankfurt where they have the new scanners and you don't have to empty out your bag anymore. So much smoother. Then I fly back and get all annoyed at the other airports. I was told Oslo airport is holding out until it becomes regulation to use the new scanners. Security-Theater is still what it is. It is super weak imho, despite never having seriously attempted a heist or trying to get contraband on a plane. I miss the good old days where you handed your luggage to a guy just before boarding the plane.

    • By bleepblap 2026-01-275:331 reply

      There's a whole ton of people taking about MRI -- MRIs are a completely universe than CT/X-rays

    • By HNisCIS 2026-01-275:361 reply

      Dual energy x ray has been around forever though, like decades.

    • By 5d41402abc4b 2026-01-278:224 reply

      Can this X Ray bit flip memory or damage NAND?

  • By pelagicAustral 2026-01-2711:506 reply

    If you think you had it bad all these years, you should come and visit the Falkland Islands. I will be brief, but I will explain what going through the Mount Pleasant Airport (MPN) feel like for the average visitor.

    For added context: Only one flight by a commercial airline a week on Saturday, comes in around 1300, departs around 1500. You miss it, you wait another week.

    - The terminal is extremely small, the plane that comes around can probably fit around 180 pax, you could not fit that many people on the check-in lounge, which means a lot of times people have to queue outside, even in the winter.

    - Check in is sluggish, with the Airline representatives in the Falklands calling for check in 4 hours in advance when a flight is full.

    - After getting your ticket, security will check your bags and you will be asked to wait an undetermined amount of time, to see if a "random" check need to take place, again, the terminal is tiny, people often crowds waiting forever for their name the be shouted by some security person.

    - If you manage to get passed this part, you are still not safe, security can still call your name when passing through or after immigration. Even if you are already in the wait lounge. Someone might still show up and shout your name.

    - Immigration will scan your passport and charge you £40 for leaving the country.

    - Now you are actually commit to the security checkpoint (these are the same guys that scan the bags on check-in). At any given time there is at least 10 in a 5m2 area. You are forced to take your shoes, no liquids are allowed, no toothpaste, take all electronics out of your bag, take jacket off.

    - You are randomly tested for drug and explosive traces (GOING OFF THE FALKLAND ISLANDS)

    - You may be patted

    - All your belongings might be checked at this point as well.

    All in all, you could be looking at a 2-hour ordeal from start to finish.

    Do yourself a favor. Go to Maldives instead.

    • By CGMthrowaway 2026-01-2715:481 reply

      Mount Pleasant Complex is primarily a military base, not a normal civilian airport. That explains almost everything you’re experiencing. Civilian flights are effectively guests on a military base

    • By stirlo 2026-01-2722:23

      Tiny airport, on island with tiny population, thats not a major tourist destination, thats subject to competing territorial claims, that had a major war fought over it in living memory, has extra security requirements and a poor terminal...

      I'm flabbergasted, this is absolutely shocking and outrageous!!!

      I would much rather see the penguins in the maldives!!!

    • By sterwill 2026-01-2714:521 reply

      I flew to Belfast in the mid-2000s. I don't remember the security screening as being that unusual (for an American), but the terminal architecture was interesting.

    • By IshKebab 2026-01-2713:44

      Apart from a lack of space a lot of that is very normal, and it's hardly surprising things are a bit janky if they only have one flight a week.

    • By NL807 2026-01-2712:18

      Dudes must be really bored there

    • By secondcoming 2026-01-2712:08

      That's crazy.

HackerNews