Hmmmm, The Feds must have intel about another airlines attack???

[EOD Guy]

I can think of three other reasons:

1) Checked bags are scanned behind the scenes, so the terrorist has no control over who scans it. For carry-on, he can choose which line to get in, presumably choosing the line with a compromised or collaborating inspector.

2) If the threat device is detected in checked baggage, it's rendered harmless without the terrorist knowing it until he is taken into custody. He then becomes a potential liability to the terrorist organization. If detected in carry on, he's in close proximity and at least has a possibility at making it go boom, even if he is the sole fatality. Any boom in an airport makes headlines.

3) To avoid detection, the device must be small... this also means it must be close to the bulkhead and/or hydraulic/control lines in the airplane. This cannot be guaranteed, and is very unlikely, when placed in the hold with hundreds of suitcases surrounding it. Think shaped charge.

You get it...I like how you think.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You get it...I like how you think.

Thank you... and I should have said three "additional" reasons, as the one you reported is a prime one, if not the prime one.

I like this action by the Trump administration. I doubt that it is "new" intel saying that terrorists wanted to put bombs, and bombers, on flights originating in these countries, but delaying detonation until the connecting flight was loaded with westerners. Kudos for taking action.

Presumably, the Obama administration was willing to leave these security holes open in the name of some sort of faux diplomacy, or to avoid increasing ISIS recruitment.

 

[Sylvain]

I can think of three other reasons:

1) Checked bags are scanned behind the scenes, so the terrorist has no control over who scans it. For carry-on, he can choose which line to get in, presumably choosing the line with a compromised or collaborating inspector.

2) If the threat device is detected in checked baggage, it's rendered harmless without the terrorist knowing it until he is taken into custody. He then becomes a potential liability to the terrorist organization. If detected in carry on, he's in close proximity and at least has a possibility at making it go boom, even if he is the sole fatality. Any boom in an airport makes headlines.

3) To avoid detection, the device must be small... this also means it must be close to the bulkhead and/or hydraulic/control lines in the airplane. This cannot be guaranteed, and is very unlikely, when placed in the hold with hundreds of suitcases surrounding it. Think shaped charge.

Also a device meant to explode in the cargo hold would need to be much more complex (altimeter, timer etc).
Something not needed for a crude bomb that the terrorist would trigger himself.
It would also need to be already fully assembled, therefore making it look more like a bomb and easier to detect on Xrays.
The ones made to explode in the cabin are usually assembled during the flight from various components that look harmless.

 

[NKBJ]

Klingons do that with parts of their clothing.
Stick the pieces together and whamo, they're zapping federales all over the place.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Having actually been trained in improvised explosives, it's not as tough as some of you seem to think, particularly with an incendiary device. I'm sure EOD Guy realizes this as well. An explosion from an ipad sized device in a cargo hold (or passenger compartment) wouldn't be catastrophic. A fire in the cargo hold would be much more serious. That's why they ask you about lithium batteries or e-cigarettes in your checked bags. The methods to trigger it could range from a cell phone to simply using the devices already built in time keeping functions (you can set an alarm on an ipad...)