FAA Bans organic lifeforms on planes, cites spontaneous human combustion risk

I don't read The Onion very often but it occurs to me my blog entry title "FAA Bans organic lifeforms on planes, cites spontaneous human combustion risk" would make a good Onion headline. It occurred to me after I read that the UK was banning books on flights. I mean seriously - books - WTF? Even if you think something could be concealed inside one, how hard is it to x-ray a book? And how hard is it to flip through the pages as I've actually seen inspectors do to my books before now?

Are they worried that someone might carry on a copy of Fahrenheit 451 and it would spontaneously ignite? Or write down two halves of a funny joke, read them out together Monty Python style and bring a plane down that way?

Sure I can understand their temporary ban of liquids and gels, or even a permanent one, but it makes no sense for them to ban them in carry-on baggage and still allow them in hold baggage. For some reason they think that explosives undetectable in carry-on checks will magically be detectable in hold baggage. More accurately I read it was that hold baggage explosives would require a proper detonator which would be detectable but even that doesn't make any sense. As I've said before, and I'll say it again, it would be so easy to fabricate a remote or location based detonator from everyday electronics items like a phone, smart-PDA, or GPS with a battery or two used as detonator charge.

And if you think the location in the hold prevents a precision explosion over a populated area think again. All it needs is a wireless link from the baggage hold to the passenger seating area - something easily achieved with modern off the shelf wireless devices that support bluetooth or WiFi. And if planes happen to start providing WiFi or phone connectivity then it would be even easier to remotely detonate half a world away by tracking the flight over the Internet using one of the many flight tracking services and sending timing instructions from the ground.

Interestingly the British have figured out this problem and already restricted that information for flights over the UK - however the US doesn't seem to get it just like they didn't get the risk from liquid explosives, hold baggage explosions or even the risk of hijack because the cockpit door is wide open. All along its been money that has allowed airlines to say "it's too expensive" and money that has persuaded the government not to legislate.

Then all of a sudden after 9/11 every airline rushed to bring in lockable reinforced cockpit doors which they managed to implement oh-so-quickly. Of course as if to prove their point they promptly put out their hands for a big far industry wide bailout, none of which would probably have been necessary if they'd just done the obvious in the first place. So wasn't the cost of not acting and having a hijack incident demonstrably higher than that of acting without one, never mind the actual cost of 9/11 (tens of billions) and indirect cost of its effects (which is now in the hundreds of billions).

I personally think it may be time for Israeli style baggage checks, or for airlines to start transporting baggage separately from people carrying flights using 100% remote controlled aircraft which as the military have shown can be done even with current technology, never mind what could be developed if the industry just put its mind to it. Then all we'd have to worry about would be the baby or garrulous blabbermouth in the seat next to us and so far I've yet to hear of a plane being brought down by either of those.