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.