London : Is air travel any safer from militant attacks, three years after a group of men tried to blow up transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives?
For many analysts the balance of risk looks little changed: While the industry has tightened security, attackers continue to innovate and transport systems remain a target of choice. Some take a darker view, arguing a post-2006 toughening of security has been clumsy, producing longer queues at checkpoints that offer attackers a bigger on-ground target. Others complain potential security improvements have been stymied by red tape.
Three Britons were found guilty in September of plotting to kill thousands by blowing up North America-bound airliners in mid-flight suicide attacks with bombs made of liquid explosives.
The suspected Al Qaida plot, just days away from being put into operation according to British detectives, had huge worldwide ramifications leading to tight restrictions on the amount of liquids passengers could take on board aircraft.
Still at risk
"We are still at risk," said security and aviation analyst Chris Yates, noting there is still no widely available system installed at international airports to detect explosives in liquid form, although several technologies are in trials.
Nor is there a widely-deployed technology to routinely guard against a bomber with explosives hidden in a body cavity — a technique Al Qaida used only last month in Saudi Arabia.
In that case, a suicide bomber on August 27 blew himself up in the Jeddah office of the kingdom's security chief, Prince Mohammad Bin Nayef, a member of the Saudi royal family.
Prince Mohammad was not seriously hurt. But the attack revealed Al Qaida to be as innovative as ever: official Saudi media said the explosives were implanted in the bomber's body.
Other novelties since 2006 include so-called swarm attacks by suicide gunmen who have struck hotels and other targets in Asia using automatic rifles and hand grenades in the past 12 months, including the Mumbai attacks that killed 175 people.
Cost pressure
Security continues to impose large costs on the aviation sector, which depends on a relatively unimpeded flow of passengers and cargo to work commercially. IATA says airlines and passengers pay $5.9 billion in a year in security costs.
David Learmount, safety and operations editor of British-based magazine Flight International, said there were limits to what the industry could do. "We could have perfect, proactive security," he said. "Heathrow for example could be like a military base in wartime.
"But if you bring in procedures without evidence showing it is necessary, it is something society won't take, and we would completely destroy our own freedom. We don't want to live like that, and we would choke global travel almost to death."
