Boxer Proposes Blast-Proof Air Cargo Containers

[Bob Geiger]

In yet another attempt by Senate Democrats to get the Republican leadership to devote time and money to real national security measures, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced legislation last week to require commercial airliners to store cargo in blast-resistant containers.

Boxer's S. 3927 was read on the Senate floor on Thursday and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee, on which the California Senator is also a member.

"Transportation Security Administration, TSA, has implemented new security procedures since we learned of the London terror plot to detonate liquid explosives on flights from Great Britain to the United States," said Boxer in introducing her bill. "While I support these new procedures, TSA is asking passengers to give up their lip gloss, yet we are not examining cargo loaded on board our passenger planes."

"We should be doing this at every airport to ensure the security of the flying public and the solvency of the airline industry. But until that time, at the very least, we need to use at least one blast resistant cargo container on passenger planes that carry cargo. This was one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission."

Boxer pointed out that the Senate's GOP leadership would not allow the recently-passed port security bill to be amended to include air cargo and proposed this legislation in response.

"Addressing port security is critical. However, security for other transportation modes is important, but the Republican leadership wanted us to do port security and nothing else," said Boxer. "The final bill the Senate approved does not contain any major provisions for aviation security. Yes, aviation security has improved greatly in the last five years. But, as we recently found out with the aviation terrorist plot uncovered by the British authorities, there are still holes in the system."

The 9/11 Commission recommended that every passenger aircraft carrying cargo deploy at least one hardened container to carry any suspect cargo -- one of the many things about the Commission's report totally ignored by Congressional Republicans and the White House.

Boxer made it clear that, in addition to being a measure the majority of Americans would solidly support, the cost is minimal -- especially when compared to what is being spent on the pointless Iraq war.

"To place one blast-resistant container on each plane, would cost about $75 million -- this is equal to the cost of a little more than 5 hours in Iraq. Imagine the impact on the security of the country and the financial outlook for the airline industry if a plane were to explode during a flight."

"We owe this to the American people."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

[SteppingRazor]

1. I'm betting this won't happen due to airline-industry pressure...

it's not just the $75 million installation cost. These blast-proof containers are extremely heavy, which means the airlines have less room for cargo, which means they make less money per flight, which means a loss of millions and millions of dollars per year.

[populistdriven]

5. that is not true, they can be extremely light

ever picked up a sack of perlite?

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/bown2005/generalinnovation/3633723e7e927010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

looking for video demonstration...

[populistdriven]

6. here are videos, this stuff is extremely light

http://www.blastgardintl.com/product.asp

[populistdriven]

7. here are the actual blastproof aircraft containers

http://www.blastgardintl.com/bp_blastwrap_bmuld.asp
they discuss the weight

[populistdriven]

8. The US Government uses them GSA Contract GS-07F-5769R, effective 4/15/05

[SteppingRazor]

9. Yes, but that just makes my point...

the airline industry has already been screaming about this -- and they're angry about containers weighing "about 300 pounds" -- http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060820/28aviation.htm -- which is similar to the 266 pound weight of the top-of-the-line container you've posted here.

I'm aware of the technology you're discussing. I'm also aware the airline industry spends $40 million per year on lobbying, and that even a hundred pounds would be too much for them.

[populistdriven]

10. but they already use containers so the difference is minimal

its just that the containers are not bombproof

[longship]

2. Blast proof, eh?

Has anybody thought clearly on this?
Blast proof? Composed of what? Lead? High Strength steel?
How much is such a thing going to weigh?

"Sir, the blast proof containers are on board. We can now taxi to the runway."

"Copilot, thank you... Beginning taxi... Of course, we're tons over our take-off weight so we're not likely going to be able to take-off."

"Sir. See! The blast-proof containers work. No more plane crashes. If you can't take off, you can't crash."

"Thank goodness for Congress. Safe airliners at last."

[Bob Geiger]

3. Wow! I'm glad you thought of this!

I'm going to call Senator Boxer's office right now and let her know that a brilliant commenter on DU thought of something that nobody else even had the brains to consider! Because I'm sure everyone involved in this legislation never even *thought* about whether or not such a device is viable! Thank you *so* much!

Or maybe they did consider it and were fooled by the number of planes worldwide that already manage to lift off with these containers on board.

[wtmusic]

4. alright, alright

Over-the-top sarcasm aside, IMO longship was addressing only *one* aspect of what appears to be a high-profile impractical "solution" that is really no solution at all.

One container per plane? How will we make sure the explosives are put in that one? :rofl: