ATA Notes Kevlar-Laced Pods Would Weigh More, Carry Less

The US government is very interested in proposed "bomb-resistant" luggage containers for airliners, that could prevent a small suitcase bomb from taking down an airliner. But practical considerations may leave the idea on the shelf.

USA Today reports the Department of Homeland Security is keen on the new containers, which measure 5-feet-by-5-feet and are reinforced with high-strength Kevlar. Howard Fleisher, deputy director of the Transportation Security Lab at DHS, notes such containers may have prevented the 1988 downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Though there has been a relative dearth of similar terrorist attacks against airliners since then, officials remain concerned that similar explosive devices could make it past security, and onboard commercial planes. The working theory is the reinforced cargo pods could contain such blasts, at least minimizing damage to the plane itself and allowing time for an emergency landing.

The idea sounds wonderful on paper... until, that is, you start discussing practical applications of the technology, and who's going to pay for it. The Transportation Security Administration says it won't purchase the containers, as Congress has not appropriated any funds to pay for them. That places the financial burden on the airlines... and, well, you can imagine how receptive they are.

"Carriers won't pay for them," David Castelveter, spokesman for the Air Transport Association, says bluntly. He notes each container would cost around $18,000... and, perhaps most importantly in these fuel-saving times, would weigh 265 pounds apiece. Besides the weight hit, the physical dimensions of the containers would also reduce available space for luggage and other cargo.

Scientists lament such attitudes will probably keep such containers off airliners for the foreseeable future. "We can do all this work for 15-20 years and have something that potentially saves lives," says Robert Fu, an engineer Telair International, which manufactures the containers. "However, it's going to be probably left on the trophy rack."

No one interviewed by USA Today mentioned what seems to be an obvious point to us. If a small explosive placed in checked luggage can slip past security and make it onboard an airliner, to hopefully be contained by the Kevlar pods... what's preventing a similar explosive device from being placed inside a carry-on bag?

Wait... that attitude places the total burden to stop such devices on TSA screeners. Nevermind.

FMI: www.tsa.gov, www.airlines.org, www.telair.com