Tighter security rules on flights

Of course, the airport security checks on passengers did not exist as we know it today before the events of September 11, 2001 (sometimes referred to as 9/11), when terrorists high-jacked several U.S.-bound commercial planes full of passengers and turned them into missiles to take down the two World Trade Center (WTC) buildings in New […]

Of course, the airport security checks on passengers did not exist as we know it today before the events of September 11, 2001 (sometimes referred to as 9/11), when terrorists high-jacked several U.S.-bound commercial planes full of passengers and turned them into missiles to take down the two World Trade Center (WTC) buildings in New York City. A third plane attacked the Pentagon. Americans’ feeling of security, if not invincibility, had never been as shaken as by the events of that fateful day. The damage was severe, with a death toll of almost three thousand people that worked at WTC, representing people of all races, religions, and from virtually all countries of the world. Entire families were wiped out, thousands of people were turned into widows or widowers, and the event might have created hundreds of orphans.
Travelling on commercial planes has never been the same since the events of 9/11. You have to go through searches of your carry-on luggage and sometimes of your person, for the security personnel to certify that you are not carrying weapons that could be used to take down airplanes.
The initial focus of the search was limited to weapons, sharp objects, and liquids. I witnessed mothers being asked to drink out of the liquid baby food formula that they were carrying, to certify that the substance in the feeding bottle wasn’t combustible liquid fuel. When the search process stabilized somewhat, the threshold for the volume of liquid that you could carry in your hand luggage was set at three ounces; any containers with more than this volume were confiscated. With time, folks warmed up to the rules, to accept the delays as a part of the new equilibrium in air travel.
The “bad guys” of course always look for new, innovative ways to beat the security process. They have tried to hide explosives in the soles of shoes. Remember the Underwear Bomber in December 2009? In that event, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, tried to detonate an Asiri-built bomb that had been sewn into his underwear. Mr. Abdulmutallab’s lap caught fire while the plane was still in the air, but he was fiercely attacked and subdued by passengers before the bomb was able to cause substantial damage. Mr. Abdulmutallab was arraigned and taken into custody in Detroit (USA) by law enforcement officers after the airliner landed. He was later sentenced to life in prison. Intelligence reports have also found that, since 2009, the Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, to which Abdulmutallab belonged, had unsuccessfully planned at least three attacks on airliners using bombs carried on board or planted in cargo. (The chief bomb maker for the group is believed to be Mr. Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri.)
Just as soon as the airport security agents appeared to be relaxing the rules a little, we learned of the events of last week Monday, which was reported for example in New York Times by Ron Nixon and Michael Schmidt in the 7 July 2014 issue of the newspaper. The journalist write: “As the news goes, in response to intelligence reports about plots being hatched by Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, the United States has, for the first time, asked officials at more than a dozen foreign airports to confiscate from passengers any electronic devices that cannot be turned on, American officials said on Monday.” Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is said to be planning to disguise explosives in devices like cellphones after repeated failed attempts to bring down an American airliner.
The new security measures apply to selected airports in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and will require you to turn on your electronic devices which will be screened by security personnel to prove that your devices are harmless. The assumption in this process is that the contents of the devices that do not boot up have been gutted (removed) and replaced with explosives.
If your smartphone, for example, fails to power up the first time, you will be allowed to use a battery charger. If that fails, your smartphone will be confiscated. Some sources suggest that virtually any electrical device that can be powered on (cell phones, tablets, laptops, electrical shaving machines, music players, etc.) will be included in the list of products to be screened, and that some countries are likely to add additional security measures of their own.
So what happens if your device is confiscated? The answer depends on the airliner/airport. I learned that under certain conditions, British Airways might keep the device for you to collect on your return trip, for up to four months, while some airlines/airports plan to destroy any confiscated gadgets. I am not quite sure on this point.
In order to avoid the new (additional) electronic “scrutiny” at the airport, you can choose to check in all your gadgets. However, the attachment that we have developed to some of these gadgets, coupled with the thought of theft by airport luggage handlers, will make this option a bit difficult for most. For example, most people will want to carry on their primary cellphone with them. As you can see, air travel is becoming less fun.
The take-away from this article is that new security rules for electronics on flights bound for U.S. were established last week based on intelligence reports on terrorist activities. You will need to allow for extra time of processing at the airport.