CT scanning tech could put an end to 100ml liquid limit on flights by 2024

Everyone remembers the indignity of having to toss water, shampoo, toothpaste because of some far-fetched airport security rules that flew over their head. But the days of clear plastic bags and the rush to buy "travel-sized" toiletries could be coming to an end. According to a report in The Times, the ban on carrying liquids …

[wolfetone]

I do a bit of photography with film - yes it does still exist, no I am not a hipster - and this is probably the worst thing I could think of happening the next time I get on a plane. CT Scanners ruin undeveloped film. A niche problem yes, but not all of us need to carry liquids with us on to a plane either.

In America they have these CT scans and they're great. Although I'm not sure why we still take our boots off but that's by the by. The TSA agents manning these machines are all too happy to take my film and check it by hand so it doesn't touch the scanners. I've done this several times and every time there's not been a bother. I have a nice chat with them and I'm all too happy for them taking the time to do this. Last time I was boarding a flight the TSA agent was telling me that he used to do film photography when he started at Newark and that his first day on the job was 9/11. I've learned a lot from these TSA guys.

British airports, specifically Heathrow, are fucking wank. I asked them nicely to do it, and I swear the guy reacted like I had asked him to do a random drug test. The whole world fell out of his arse basically. He's huffing and puffing with the check (which, for the record, is a swab around the canister to look for explosives/drugs). He said "maybe you should get digital mate, it's much easier". I had to bite my tongue, because I wanted to tell him that not having to fly at all was much easier but here I am with no choice in the matter.

If Heathrow's attitude changes then there's no problem with this CT scanner. But I know they won't. So I'm not sure the next time I travel how I'm going to handle it. Whether I buy the film when I'm there (if I can) and then find a place to develop it (instead of me doing it) and then hoping when I get the negatives back the scanner doesn't knacker them before I scan them.

Yeah, I know, I sound like a prat that I'm moaning that this scanner is going to allow people to bring bottles of coke with them from Tesco on to the flight to save a few quid. But like everything in the UK, everything is a good idea until it's executed, then it's never the sunny uplands that were promised.

[Anonymous Coward]

if Heathrow is 'that' experience, I kind of fail to imagine what it'd be like at the famous Luton or Stansted... They'd probably ignore you pretending you never heard you, starting through you and smiling through their clenched teeth to the next victim in line? Or, perhaps, the 'system' has reached the ultimate state of connected vessels and your experience is solid shit, regardless of whether you fly from a shitty Stansted or 'upmarket' Heathrow?

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, heathrow is no better than any other airport. Except it's far more expensive/hassle to park at or otherwise get there.

I actively avoid heathrow when given the choice.

[Jedit]

"I actively avoid heathrow when given the choice."

The last two times I took a connecting flight through Heathrow, they lost my luggage. It's dire.

I will, however, commend the helpful staff who got me through the security check just in time when everything went wrong from start to finish.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done Luton, Stanstead and Heathrow, and I HATE Heathrow, but I HATE Luton and Stanstead more....

[JimboSmith]

Flew through Boston a few times this summer both internationally and domestically. They’re using these new scanners there and it takes longer to check each piece of hand luggage. I was travelling with quite a lot of electronics and volunteered to remove some of it to speed things up. The bloke manning the start of the line very firmly told me and another bloke to leave everything in our bags. As a result it took about two minutes each to scan our bags which was annoying and twice as long as anyone else’s. Nice technology but it didn’t help speed things up when I’ve had experience of it.

[vtcodger]

FWIW

I was curious if tinfoil might actually be useful to protect your film. And I came across this:

https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/what-happens-if-your-film-goes-through-the-tsas-ct-scanners/

Their take: A single CT scan of unexposed ISO 400 film won't do much harm, but scanning exposed film does have some impact on detail in low light areas. Is that true? It's the internet. Who the hell knows?

Tinfoil? Don't know. And not sure where one finds tinfoil nowadays. Aluminum foil? Probably not--not dense enough to block X-rays? Lead foil. Maybe. But for some reason I think lead foil is expensive and hard to come by. Besides, there's some possibility that the Airport people may actually look at their screen when your carry-on floats by and take umbrage at a strange, opaque package.

I don't actually care. My standards are not high, and digital is good enough for me. And air travel has become so aggravating in recent decades that I'll use virtually any alternative mode of transportation in order to avoid it.

[wolfetone]

Re: FWIW

"Their take: A single CT scan of unexposed ISO 400 film won't do much harm, but scanning exposed film does have some impact on detail in low light areas. Is that true? It's the internet. Who the hell knows?"

So the last time I went on a plane anywhere was New York in 2019, the before times. While the TSA are great, the Park Rangers must do the training for Heathrow. Everything must be scanned.

I have two rolls of film that went through the x-ray scanners about 4/5 times on the one day. When I developed them at home I did notice a degradation in the quality. Far more grainy and washed out. But the most telltale sign of anything being wrong was from the sprockets where you could see columns of grey coming from them. Essentially what you would see if you took your film to Chernobyl, it was all radiation damage. Given the day was quite misty/murky and it was all black and white, it kind of helped with the aesthetics. I mean I'd rather they weren't on the film anyway but might as well make the most of it. The films were both ISO 400 film too.

I've heard people on about lead lined bags etc to protect the film, but it just feels that instead of asking whats the problem and offering to hand check them they'll just take them out and throw them through the scanner anyway.

[Mr. Flibble]

Re: FWIW

The TSA are wankers, in particular spent ages going through by shit, asking "why" i had some documents in french, and if a pack of glow sticks would explode if they opened it. They were being deadly serious. All that security BS has put me off travelling there.

They also had security theatre of a box I had to put my feet on soon after 9/11 happened - it was away from anything else and wasn't even plugged in, it was just a stupid wooden box with a picture of a footprint on it. What was that for? just to scare retarded terrorists?

[Benegesserict Cumbersomberbatch]

Re: FWIW

The unexpected fogging of photographic film was how X-Rays were discovered in the first place, by a bloke named Wilhelm Röntgen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: FWIW

Tinfoil is amazing it protects from everything from 5g to microwaves.

[Sp1z]

Re: FWIW

However unfortunately stupidity is apparently carried on a much higher wavelength and therefore penetrates the foil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: FWIW

I highly recommend you *don’t* try to protect anything with lead. I’ve been pulled aside into an interrogation room for an hour, without being told what was going on. There was lots of commotion outside. Turned out, the problem was a Xmas present for my mother-in-law, which my wife had picked out…..a rather large spherical ornament made of lead crystal, with some silver work in the middle, all wrapped up beautifully.

Apparently looked on X-ray exactly like a small atomic bomb made of uranium. They weren’t amused, but I genuinely didn’t have a clue what was going on. They kept on shouting, what’s in the package, at first I didn’t even know which package, and when I said “a present for my mother-in-law” that didn’t seem to help my case at all.

[Boo Radley]

Re: FWIW

I had the same thing happen to me a few years ago, flying into Houston from Brazil. Apparently TSA found a little empty 2ml glass bottle in my baggage, and that one item, combined with the fact that I had given Customs a different employer from the one on previous trips, caused them to pull me into the little windowless room, where I wasn't told why they were questioning me. They shouted seemingly random questions at me for nearly two hours, insinuating all kinds of nefarious deeds, before they finally gave me a clue as to why they were treating me this way. It seems that my frequent trips to and from Brazil (where my boyfriend and I owned a condo on Copacabana beach) plus that tiny bottle (which I guess some people might use for some kind of illicit drug) aroused their suspicion. It was a truly terrifying experience to be treated this way by agents of my own country, and was one of the reasons I quit traveling almost completely. I've only flown one time since that day, and in all likelihood won't ever fly again, for various additional reasons.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: FWIW

a small atomic bom...“a present for my mother-in-law” that didn’t seem to help my case at all."

I'm surprised they didn't suddenly turn all sympathetic and understanding and let you go instantly :-)

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: FWIW

"I think lead foil is expensive and hard to come by."

You could ask the Mythbusters where they got theirs from. They used quite a significant amount proving that a lead balloon CAN fly :-)

[Scott Broukell]

@wolftone

My dear old thing the answer is very simple - one just needs to travel exclusively by private jet. Or, failing that, just use the Ultra Prestige First Class airline services - the ones for the pov's who aren't quite billionaires. Many of them send a driver for you as well and it beats standing around with all those awful crowds in those cattle-shed terminals! Plus, you really can get absolutely anything you want through the proper channels that way!

If you're worried about climate change then do what we do and plant some trees after each trip. The children, Jocasta and Ptolemy (bless them), came up with the idea and since there's a few thousand hectares of land in the family around the world, we just send out the locals to do some planting every time we come home.

Glad to be of help, TTFN. Silly you.

/S

[Anonymous Coward]

> Plus, you really can get absolutely anything you want through the proper channels that way!

For the unaware: the man is *not* joking.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen many not so pleasant comments about the TSA on the internet. My encounters so far are counterindicative of this. Friendly staff, and a suitcase delayed but forwarded to my accomodation because it got checked because the scan picked up a home made christmas cake which meant our suitcase missed a connecting flight, transiting through Washington (with the mobile lounges :-) to Orlando. Maybe it's because I'm british, but t some point, you have to choose the balance between who and what you let on to an aeroplane and how convenient you want that to be.

[Anonymous Coward]

You still have to ditch your liquids in US airports, unless their installation is just as slow.

Can’t say I have ever flown out of T3 @ LHR either. Always been T2 or T4.

[Charlie Clark]

Risk didn't exist in the first place…

…but the rules were kept in place at the behest of airports which rely on them to sell drinks, especially to families with children.

[NeilPost]

Re: Risk didn't exist in the first place…

Not hard to find the water fountain, and take a Robinson’s (or Lidl) Mini.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Risk didn't exist in the first place…

Depends upon the airport and that's hardly a justification for the silly rules, is it?

[NeilPost]

Re: Risk didn't exist in the first place…

Not really … but I also doubt that airport security measures - and their on-going cost - are to support sales at WH Smith, Costa, Boots etc.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Risk didn't exist in the first place…

The restriction on liquids most definitely is, for two reasons: it increases sales and the associated costs can be passed onto passengers via the "security charge". Assume 0.5 l beverage for £2 for 50% of passengers (yes, I know this has to be split with the retailer). Retail income has become more important to airports since competition over fees emerged. Since then the "airport experience" has very much become selling passengers to retailers.

[NeilPost]

Re: Risk didn't exist in the first place…

You seem wedded to a preposterous conspiracy theory.

The CAA set the airport charges levy, not the airport or UK Border Force. This is UK Retained EU Law.

https://www.heathrow.com/company/about-heathrow/economic-regulation/airport-charges-and-passenger-volumes

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Risk didn't exist in the first place…

No conspiracy here. In a rare moment of lucidity, the European Commission did recommend the ban be withdrawn, the airports complained and the politicians jumped on the opportunity.

[chivo243]

Another knee jerk reaction

and we're still stuck with it. I've lost count of them, but someone's knee must be bruised and bloody as hell... maybe even a fractured patella.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sheer codswallop!

While the source of many a security queue bust-up, far from being draconian, the liquid rule had a basis in a foiled 2006 terror plot that would have been al-Qaeda's worst attack in the West since 9/11.

Except the plot was entirely implausible, as revealed by this very site:

https://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

[Tim 11]

I don't understand

The point of the regulations, as I understand them is that we're not allowed more than 10x100ml of liquids on a plane because someone could make a bomb out of liquids if they got hold of more than that (let's ignore for the minute that it's also possible, some might say easier, to make a bomb of solids)

how does a CT scanner change that? surely it can't detect the exact chemicals present in a liquid

[Charlie Clark]

Re: I don't understand

The threat was already neglible. The failed "underpant bomber" gave governments the excuse for yet more security theatre and the airports cheered them on and successfully lobbied against the repeal of the rule, once the threat was shown to be negligible. You can buy enough stuff in duty free for some fairly nasty fireworks, but you could also take the basics for some more "interesting" stuff with you and "just add water" or other suitable reagents. The same is true for sharp implements, of course.

However, it's generally easier to target something else, such as the security queue, or bribe someone with security clearance to take whatever you want through: crew staff, catering, cleaners and all those security goons on minimum wage. That's how most smuggling happens anyway, apparently.

[Mr. Flibble]

Re: I don't understand

Also, you can't take more than 100WH of batteries..... unless you're disabled, then you're allowed more than, so surely just "employ" "disabled" terrorists....

[KarMann]

Re: I don't understand

To be fair, that particular rule is much more about accidental fires, than about anything deliberate.

Icon: There's a reason this one exists.

[Filippo]

Re: I don't understand

Agree. I mean, I'm happy that they'll get rid of a stupid annoying rule, but I really don't see the connection with CT scanners.

It sounds to me like they want to get rid of the rule because the queues at security checks are getting intolerable and they know it's pointless anyway, but they need some kind of justification.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I don't understand

Once they stopped these dastardly terrorists taking liquid explosives on board, I always wondered why they didn't just smash some bottles of duty free booze on the seats and set fire to it.

[Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells]

Re: I don't understand

Do duty free sell anything that's overproof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I don't understand

… or a lighter and a couple of Bottles of Navy Strength Rum from the Duty Free shop will do it.

[IvyKing]

Re: I don't understand

@Tim 11,

You are correct in asserting that CT machines "can't detect the exact chemicals in a liquid", but they are much better than 2-D X-ray machines for differentiating between benign liquids and potentially hazardous liquids.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I don't understand

… whereas you can purchase pretty much all you need to make a Molotov cocktail in World Duty Free/Dufry (other airport tat shops are available)

[IvyKing]

Re: I don't understand

... well sort of. I know Canada had limits of the proof of booze being carried on airliners specifically because of the fire hazard. While 100 proof booze will burn quite nicely, the water content does slow down the burning and cool the flame a bit. This would be similar to water injection used in the intake of a spark ignited mixture engine (i.e. gasoline/petrol engine) to reduce/eliminate detonation.

[Southernboy]

The dim and distant past and X-Ray film

I've told this before but hey.

Many moons ago (1980s), my wife was travelling to Tanzania carrying X-Ray film, as the hospital she was going to be working at needed new supplies.

Arrived at security.

1. "This can't go through that X-Ray machine, as it contains X-Ray film"

2. "No madam, this machine won't damage film"

Repeat 1 and 2 above several times.

Eventually, she had to change her approach.

"Look carefully, X-RAY FILM on this packet. X-RAY MACHINE in front of us, get the connection?" (yes even aged 24, she wasn't fazed by authority).

They eventually took he packet (and her, I fear!) into a darkened room to fumble with the packet (the packet I said) to check it wasn't going to explode, and she was allowed through.

[Anonymous Coward]

But, the trouble is...

...so far only UK airports have been mentioned where this new CT scanning system will work.

But Europe still follows the line that the maximum size (by volume) liquid container for cabin bags is 100ml.

And I cannot see the EU installing these new CT scanning systems in every airport...so, leaving the UK might be fine and security checks pre-flight might get shorter...but coming back might be different...and likewise, having just flown back to UK (arriving at 6pm on a weekday) and found that only 75% of the biometric scanners were working at border control, leading to long queues and long wait times, while everyone slowly got through is just crazy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But, the trouble is...

75% of scanners worked, you say? You were lucky! When we returned from summer holiday, only about half the biometric scanner gates were 'operational' (the rest quietly resting), and of those further, hard-to-establish % worked successfully, the rest worked when failure to work was overriden by manual 'officer'...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: But, the trouble is...

‘Not enough staff to man the automated eGates last I had this shitshow in T2 returning.

[David 132]

Re: But, the trouble is...

In my experience nothing ever works properly at Heathrow, apart from the parking enforcement systems and all the overpriced retail. Funny that.

[Cian_]

Re: But, the trouble is...

The article mentions Shannon (EU) as having them, and separately both Dublin (EU) and Cork (EU) have ordered them.

Amsterdam (EU again) have them already and while they strongly advise you don't use bottles >100ml as you could be made throw them out at a connecting airport, they do allow them - the website still has the <100ml entry in the rules list but there's a note below saying that staff can allow >100ml. And they do, I've seen it.

[mark l 2]

Honestly i will be very surprised if the airports go back to allowing you to bring a litre bottle of drink, bought from outside the airport through security even after they have all installed CT scanners.

Its far too lucrative to sell you stuff airside at inflated mark ups, just like theatres and cinemas don't want you bringing your own drinks and snacks as you are a captive audience that they can milk.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shannon...

I took a flight from Dublin to to Toronto once...

Never again!

There's me looking forward to a nice long snooze after take off, to hear that we'll be landing at Shannon for refuelling, cleaning the cabin and take on supplies and crew change. Think it was a 90 minute layover.

The flight, having arrived from Toronto, does a quick unload/load in Dublin, for the service stop at Shannon.

I wonder if it was cost efficient in terms of fuel burn/extra landing/take off cycle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Shannon...

Was this a while ago? If so, it's pure political pork.

Back in the pre-jet age, transatlantic flights refuelled in Shannon to ensure they had enough fuel for the journey, usually to Newfoundland as their first point of arrival. This made lots of money for Shannon & the local economy, so that when jet aircraft made it unnecessary the local politicians in the SW of Ireland made sure that aircraft were still legally required to stop in Shannon, even if they could take on sufficient fuel in Dublin.

Aer Lingus and other airlines eventually successfully challenged this and the stopover hasn't been required for the last 15 years or so, although some airlines still do it if they see enough business to/from Shannon.

[NeilPost]

Re: Shannon...

Largely been replaced by some low-cost carriers via Reykjavik. play.com, IcelandAir etc.

I’m assuming the extra fuel burned to fly the extra distance is offset - and some - by burning mess fuel as you won’t not a full Trans-Atlantic fuel load (and perhaps other consumables/waste reduction) and it’s reduced weight.

Similar to an Indy Car fuel stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Shannon...

Yes, it would now be 20 years since, and I thought the background to it was as you stated.

It was also a time when the Foynes Flying Boat Museum didn't have even a replica flying boat.

That seems to have been addressed.

https://www.flyingboatmuseum.com/aviation-museum/

[Phil Kingston]

Other than say bottled water, who's wanting to take >100ml containers of liquid? And of what?

[Sp1z]

Good point. I keep my liquid explosives in handy 99ml measures anyway.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Travel with a friend, 198ml

[doublelayer]

Other things to drink, toiletries that are liquids for longer stays than those tiny bottles work, probably some medications though fortunately not any I've ever needed, any liquid you intend to give someone (probably likely to be alcohol but who knows what people choose). Other options are available. I've certainly carried things through before where people would probably find it a bit strange, but all it has to do is fit the categories "I have it", "I want it there", and "It fits in my suitcase".

[YetAnotherXyzzy]

Ask my wife, stepdaughter, and mother-in-law. They simply cannot travel without all sorts of liquids, creams, pastes, and gels that I neither understand nor wish to, but that I am assured are of the utmost importance. Insert shruggie icon here.

[Dante Alighieri]

New careers beckon

For all those airport workers that can read CT scans in 2 minutes, Radiology awaits at a significant salary premium.

I only did 15 years of training...

$Deity only knows what they are doing to make these quick to read.

At least fluids will be safe (give or take high school chemistry competence)

Thermite reactions not withstanding...

Icon for a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: New careers beckon

> $Deity only knows what they are doing to make these quick to read.

Probably some pattern recognition (billed as Artificial Intelligence in the brochure) and red / green traffic light sort of HMI.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: New careers beckon

I imagine there's a huge difference between picking out weapons or explosives in a suitcase vs trying to determine whether a group of cells is cancerous or not, especially since they always have the option of opening the suitcase on the spot if something looks questionable. Not that I've ever done either, but I just don't see needing the same skills a medical scan reader to inspect suitcases. On the other hand, I would expect a medical scan reader to be able to pick out edge-on razor blades, and never miss anything questionable.

[Sceptic Tank]

Re: New careers beckon

At OR Thambo in Johannesburg all suitcases get opened and searched for valuables.

[Justthefacts]

Perverse incentives….

Pre-pandemic, the Security theatre had two major benefits for the airports:

You’d have to buy all your water in their shops post-security. And more importantly, instead of rocking up at the airport for a flight “recommended” an hour before take-off (or forty minutes in practice because honestly it’s fine with digital check-in), that became two or three hours you had to allow. Which means two hours of captive consumer in the flight side shops. And let’s not forget, the threat is identical on not just a Eurostar, where they seem to manage to do the security in less than half an hour. But in fact *any damn commuter train into London any day of the week*, you could probably kill or severely disable 1400 passengers by derailing a single train at speed, 7x that of a typical plane.

Post-pandemic, persuading people to fly at all is challenging. And miracle of miracles, after over a decade of it being “impossible”, it now becomes technically doable to ease customer experience down from two hours of misery at security.

Well, colour me surprised.

[Intractable Potsherd]

Re: Perverse incentives….

That's exactly what I was thinking!

[Version 1.0]

And the effect has been ...

All these regulations and checks have resulted in nobody causing an explosion on a plane since they were imposed so you can say that they suck, but you can relax on a flight. Certainly there can be issues going through security but the TSA does a good job these days.

Years ago in the 80's I was in San Fransisco airport and walked through the metal detection entrance with no problems but they stopped the guy behind me ... I kept walking away but then I turned around to see what was going on and saw the TSA guy waving a metal detector down his sides and front. I was looking from behind them and could see a revolver in the back of his trousers and a few seconds later he walked past me to another plane. I doubt that they just took his gun away but there were no incidents on any planes that day ... in the US it's not uncommon for people to forget that they should have packed their gun in the luggage, not leave it in their pants.

A few years later I had flown from the US to China with a gin container and a week later they told me that I couldn't take it onboard when I was returning to the US, so I drank it in front of the Chinese TSA lady and she was OK with me having an empty gin container.

[whitepines]

Re: And the effect has been ...

> All these regulations and checks have resulted in nobody causing an explosion on a plane since they were imposed so you can say that they suck, but you can relax on a flight.

Seeing as the regulations were so onerous that I, and a number of other colleagues, all stopped travelling by airliner entirely as a direct result of the invasive searches and some bad experiences (think windowless room for misidentified baggage -- how is that not a human rights violation?), I do question the cost / benefit involved.

By the same thinking we might as well imprison the entire population and congratulate ourselves on the eradication of crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

2001-09-11

I was flying out of North America a few weeks after the above date and had an electric tooth brush that security forced me to remove from my baggage and carry on as hand luggage. And I pointed out how stupid that was, that the cordless toothbrush with the brush removed had about a one inch long (~25 mm) solid steel spike with a very solid plastic handle. And still they forced me to carry it on as hand luggage because that was the policy (It was basically a shiv. I was being forced by security to carry a easily accessible shiv onto a plane). Her answer, which surprised me, was that since I pointed out how stupid the rule was it would probably not be something that they would need to worry about!

[Archivist]

Japan

4-years ago in Japan there were "bottle analysers" of some sort in the airports. I was able to take my own water on both internal and international flights.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone work out the drinkable binary explosive?

As banned by so many. "Look it's Safe! I can drink it.."

(Commonly known as"still warm breast milk").

[Arthur Daily]

Radiation Danger - What sort of X-ray exposure - What are the facts?

Not all X-rays are the same. What is the radiation dose the operator will get? Remember the big room, and the operators standing behind lead plastic when you go to hospital for a CT scan.

I though the devices were a mild form of backscatter radiation considered safe relative to the flight dose you will get. Maybe that patent cost for detection of nitrogen rich explosives and acetone is the real reason. I though the existing machines were fine , and the only thing here was the cost of software, and the insistence of a USA patent to get approval status, so software fees were unavoidable. Water is a non-problem, as is alcohol. Garnet stones, Women's cosmetics,oil rich food(peanut butter) and fuming nitric acid remain a problem. Do not believe the safety data, because the operator is slower, and some passenger luggage will deflect rays = radiation leakage.