"I spy, with my little eye, something beginning with 'p' ..."

August 11, 2006 3:33 AM

Why can't I take a book on a plane?

The travel restrictions imposed by the Department of Transport yesterday prohibit passengers flying out of the UK from taking a book or a magazine onto the plane.

What reason could there be for this? Presumably it would take security personnel seconds to flick through a paperback or shake a magazine to ensure nothing is being concealed in it.

What am I missing here?

posted by essexjan to travel & transportation (28 comments total)

1) Hollowed-out pages.
2) Knives/blades/C4/crude electrinic trigger imbedded in hardcover spine.
3) Sturdy material fitted between glued-together pages permits the book to be used as a blunt instrument.
4) Paper = combustible material.
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:45 AM on August 11, 2006

Presumably it would take security personnel seconds to flick through a paperback or shake a magazine to ensure nothing is being concealed in it.

Personnel and sniffer dogs aren't robots. Even on a good day, a handful of items are likely to slip through the cracks, particularly during a change in workshifts or heavy rush hour.
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:49 AM on August 11, 2006

But surely all handluggage is scanned for knives anyway, you could use anything as a 'blunt instrument', and you can't take lighters or matches on board anyway?

I would also like an answer to this question.

Christ, why don't they just amputate our hands so we can't punch anyone while flying?
posted by randomination at 3:52 AM on August 11, 2006

My take on it is that in the first few days of banning hand luggage it's easier for the security staff to ban everything deemed as non-essential. If X sees Y carrying a book through, X may well start complaining and say well if Y has a book, I want to take my iPod on which will slow things down even more. I think as the initial impact (panic?) dies down then more "harmless" things such as books and papers and stuff will be allowed on.
posted by jontyjago at 4:01 AM on August 11, 2006

Conventional knives. Anyone familiar with prison "shanks" can be determined to conceal an improvised device in a way that would require too much time and effort for an initial check to take.

It's astonishing to think of the amount of idle time antifuse and randomination are equating as wasteful. Without a window seat to stare through, or the inclination to nap while travelling between destinations, the total time experienced on a flight, regardless of how long, is equivalent to the time otherwise spent in a cab or hotel/motel room without multitasking. It's been done before, by numerous individuals, even without pencil or paper, and under the current political climate, it's not entirely unexpected.
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:03 AM on August 11, 2006

The reason for no books is that books are one more damned things to have to inspect when they have exactly zero extra seconds right now to spend on checking passenger carry-ons. Right now -- maybe not next week, but right now, until things settle down -- that's how things are on Draconian Airlines.

Now is the time to recall all those poems you've memorized. Time to meditate. Time to write songs and poems and stories (in your head). And time to watch the in-flight movie: Sheiks on a Plane. (They do still have in-flight movies and music, don't they?)
posted by pracowity at 4:27 AM on August 11, 2006

I agree with jontyjago - there are certainly some things that are now banned that are pretty much harmless, but rather than have a ridiculously extensive list of every possible thing you could or couldn't take on the plane, it is a lot easier to just ban everything bar a few essentials. I doubt this ban will last longer than a few days - the idea I think was to stop any members of the terrorist group who escaped arrest to try and quickly bomb a plane before they are tracked down and caught using the intel from the captured suspects.

It's the same thing with banning liquids - if there was specific intel that the terrorists would use liquid explosives, it makes sense to ban all liquids from planes, at least until they are sure the immediate threat has passed.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:28 AM on August 11, 2006

So that the airlines can sell you books? EasyBooks is already in the post-planning phase.

But really, they're doing it to send a message to would-be terrorists - try anything, and we'll do whatever needs to be done to stop you. Having said that, this is one of the few times that there's been an action taken that genuinely reduces the likelihood of an attack. Unlike taking off your shoes or taking out your laptop. Of course, security is always a trade-off and I'd be surprised if people were willing to accept this one beyond the short-term.
posted by quiet at 4:53 AM on August 11, 2006

I agree with jontyjago, pracowity and EndsOfInvention. A few extra seconds per passenger adds up quickly. Also less clutter in what people are bringing on makes it less likely that something important will be missed.

Non-serious answer: if you don't have anything to do on the flight, at least you'll be that much more likely to notice someone acting suspiciously.
posted by teleskiving at 5:00 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

Why can't I take a book on a plane?

Honestly, because they said so. It doesn't have to be rational or make sense, it's because they said so. In these first few days, they ARE going to be really strict, almost to the point of insanity.

It's amazing what 20 or so people you've never met can do to your world, eh?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:18 AM on August 11, 2006

In The Bourne Supremacy, Jason Bourne rolls up a magazine into a deadly weapon. Terrorists watch movies too.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:24 AM on August 11, 2006

Books and magazines can be soaked in liquids and turned into explosives (all that's required is the application of heat).
posted by nixerman at 5:25 AM on August 11, 2006

It's unlikely you're going to take out a plane with a rolled up magazine.
posted by tomble at 5:47 AM on August 11, 2006

[a few comments removed - please keep this thread on topic, just like yesterday's almost identical thread about liquids]
posted by jessamyn at 6:13 AM on August 11, 2006

Any ban aiming to reduce the possibility of terrorism that includes exceptions is built to fail. It's security through obscurity.

The case of liquids, for example: Medicines, and bottled milk/water/juice for your kid are allowed. Solution, if you're a terrorist? Bring a child with you. The TSA isn't making people taste their drinks (and they're certainly not going to taste it themselves, that's just opening up the possibility that they'd get POISONED), and even if they were, sipping a bit of explosive liquid isn't going to kill them.

As for banning books, and in an effort to keep my comment alive (it was deleted from yesterday's green about liquid banning and its reasons), it's all about the numbers: It's easy for them to ban everything that might be considered a weapon or used in a plot to blow up a plane than it is to search those items to verify their safety. Of course, that's counter to their exceptions for liquids, but hey, who's counting?
posted by Merdryn at 6:24 AM on August 11, 2006

Actually, if a parent brings on bottled milk, someone *has* to taste it before it's let on. (or so I was told by a pilot) I'm not sure about the medication bit.. I assume the name in the passport is checked against the name on the bottle..

And you can take books and magazines on the flights, but only if they're bought airside. (i.e. after the checks etc) So you can buy a magazine in duty-free and take it with you. You can also buy an ipod if you like. Only it won't have your music on it..

You can never be completely secure against everything. At least they're trying..
posted by lemonpillows at 6:34 AM on August 11, 2006

According to the what the BBC news reader read out on the radio yesterday, in the UK the only liquid you are allowed to take onboard is milk for a baby, and you (not the security people) must taste it in front of the security people. Liquid medicines are not allowed.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 6:54 AM on August 11, 2006

I used to be a product manager for a micro-based library automation system, and in talking to the librarian in charge of Texas prison libraries, I learned that libraries are central points of contraband exchange. First, almost all prisoners are allowed access to libraries. Second, it's easy to conceal things within books, especially blades.
posted by LeisureGuy at 7:35 AM on August 11, 2006 [1 favorite]

the total time experienced on a flight, regardless of how long, is equivalent to the time otherwise spent in a cab or hotel/motel room without multitasking
I cannot be reading this right. My upcoming flight from Chicago to Beijing is going to be the equivalent of a taxi ride? Obviously, air travel has gotten much more comfortable since the last time I made the trip.

As randomination noted, a book would go through the X-ray machine anyway. Anything more dense than paper would be visible, so your prison shank would net you a missed flight and an interview with a judge. Anything you could hide in a book could be hidden in other things as well, like shoes.

Clearly, the answer to the problem is to make all air travellers purchase new clothing from the airline, and not be allowed to take anything else on a plane. To make sure that the terrorists don't win, of course.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:36 AM on August 11, 2006

Note that US and Canadian authorities are not banning books, magazines and hand luggage in general. Just liquids & gels.

My read on the UK security lockdown is that it's a blanket exclusion with some exceptions and a bunch of examples for those who don't understand what is meant by "nothing is allowed in the passenger cabin". They don't mention guitars, but I would expect you'd be prohibited from taking one into the cabin on a UK flight as well.
posted by GuyZero at 7:49 AM on August 11, 2006

I suspect this is a special case due to an imminent identified plot, claimed to be very serious and advanced in planning, for which apparently not all of those potentially involved have been caught. Yes it's overkill but doesn't it seem easier to implement the simplest, most comprehensive strategy to thwart anyone who might be going for it despite the capture of the main suspects, rather than trying to create a complicated set of permissible/forbidden items? Security has gotten hyperactive, but in this case it seems fundamentally justified.
posted by nanojath at 8:32 AM on August 11, 2006

This all reminds me of the time I boarded a train in Moscow, had everything xrayed, including my shoes. Took off, got served breakfast with... a metal fork and knife.
posted by jedrek at 8:37 AM on August 11, 2006

Because it might have snakes inside?

Books, particularly hardcovers, can be pretty heavy when it comes down to it, though they'd likely be much more effective weapons per se if glued shut, which as someone notes is easy to check.

I'm also marking it up to overreaction (which is called that *right* up until it catches someone with a bomb :-).
posted by baylink at 8:52 AM on August 11, 2006

What really bugs me is that I know a fairly foolproof way to get a large, deadly knife onto a plane through the regular passenger security, and when I alerted a TSA official about it, he admited it wouldn't be detected. I know a knife isn't going to bring down a plane anymore, not with hardened cockpits and the realization that hijackers don't just want to be dropped off in Cuba these days, but I find it irritating that they're going to take away my paperback and wouldn't find a knife.
I think the best way to protect passengers is to quiz them, not force them to walk onto planes empty handed. The Israelis put you through a major third degree - I was ready to start confessing to made up stuff just to get them to stop - and it seems to work.
posted by CunningLinguist at 8:53 AM on August 11, 2006

I agree with CunningLinguist -- I haven't been through the Israeli method, but some years ago at Schiphol airport in the Netherlands, after passing all other checkpoints, just before entering the gate lounge, a uniformed officer interviewed every passenger individually, quietly, out of earshot of others, looking them in the eye. The questions were easy but not rote, there were followups that depended on the answers given. Our low-paid luggage searchers won't be able to do this; it takes a different skill set that's more difficult to develop. But as CL says, it seems to work.
posted by beagle at 9:59 AM on August 11, 2006

think the best way to protect passengers is to quiz them, not force them to walk onto planes empty handed. The Israelis put you through a major third degree - I was ready to start confessing to made up stuff just to get them to stop - and it seems to work.

I had that exact experience flying back from Birmingham airport (UK) to the US. I think that the US should invest more in security interviewers. (like that will happen)
posted by necessitas at 1:43 PM on August 11, 2006

What I don't understand is why passengers from the US to the UK can apparently take laptops, books, and magazines onboard, but passengers from the UK to the US can't take any of the above. I know the specific threat this week was to flights leaving the UK, but if it's a danger flying one way across the Atlantic, it's a danger flying the other way.
posted by lukemeister at 1:55 AM on August 12, 2006

Christ, why don't they just amputate our hands so we can't punch anyone while flying?

They'd need to amputate the stumps, too, wouldn't they?

Liquid medicines are not allowed.

They have to allow insulin. Do they really want to open themselves up to the liability caused by the diabetic who has to fly for six hours across the Atlantic, goes into a diabetic coma for lack of insulin, and suffers injury or death? (I mean, unless British law allows discrimination against those with disabilities.)
posted by oaf at 1:12 PM on August 12, 2006 [1 favorite]