USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

Liquids, Part 1 (Commenting Disabled)

Archived Content

Please note that older content is archived for public record. This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.

If you have questions about policies or procedures, please contact the TSA Contact Center.

Members of the news media may contact TSA Public Affairs.

Thursday, January 31, 2008
Liquids cover 70% of the earth and they also make up a good percentage of our comments from the traveling public. Post all of your suggestions and concerns about liquids in this blog post. Refresh your knowledge of traveling with liquids .

So, how much damage could a liquid explosive cause? See for yourself from the Myth Busters page on TSA.gov:

» Click here to see our video (wmv, streaming).

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous on

When are we going to get an answer about confiscated liquids being tossed into a nearby bin? It's obvious that no one believes those materials pose any threat whatsoever, and binning them in front of us just says "you know what, we don't care about the logic or usefulness behind this, we're just doing it because we can".

Submitted by Anonymous on

I think many of us would like some kind of response as to why confiscated liquids are not disposed of as a potential hazardous material. Just dumping these items in the trash proves TSA's actions are "Smoke and Mirrors".

Submitted by Anonymous on

I agree with most of the other commenters that the liquids policy is ridiculous "security theatre".

One small thing that would make the Policy a *little* more tolerable would be if you could purchase water at a *reasonable* price (say $1 a liter) from a vending machine on the other side of the security checkpoint.

Submitted by Allie B on

I have decided I will vote for president whichever candidate says s/he will take us off orange alert. I cannot get all my liquids into a one-quart bag. I could get them into 2 one-quart bags but that is not allowed. I really don't think a 1-ounce tube of toothpaste is worth the cost, nor will it last for my trip. Perhaps there is a financial advantage for companies that make various liquid and gel products in these regulations?

Submitted by Anonymous on

How about a response TSA!

Are confiscated liquids hazardous or not?

Either they are or are not. It cannot be both ways.

Your people manning the disposal containers should be dressed out in explosive protection suits and a hazmat team should be in attendance.

So are you saying that these things are in fact not hazardous?

Security Theater at its most entertaining!

Submitted by Sewflag on

My wife and I and my 1-year-old kid were on our way from Hong Kong to Houston, transiting in San Francisco. We got some water for our baby on the flight from the flight service and when we were transiting in San Francisco, we were asked to throw away those water. We are talking water in a baby bottle, and it's not a lot of water. The TSA agent said that clear water is not allowed and only juice are allowed. How stupid can that be! Do you mean that all liquid explosive are clear, and there are not juice-like explosive? And don't you see that we have a baby on the stroller? How dangerous can two parents and a kid be? And we just came down from the airplane that was cleared by authorities and those water are from the flight service. And can't you TSA agent look at the big picture instead of just the water? We were just parents with a kid on a stroller transiting to another flight after a long 10+ hours flight!

Submitted by Sarajahii on

Unfortunately, there are ways around the liquid rules. You can carry them on in clothing as well. I'm not suggesting this in any fashion, and I'd hope the TSA is aware of this, but we can see there are no amount of rules that will keep people from being innovative.

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/02/06/the-wine-rack-its-a.html

Submitted by Average Joe on

I really have to wonder if there isn't some group of perverse folks out there who want to see just how idiotic they can make the process of flying.
Seriously, all it would take is someone with a penchant for the dramtic and a little desktop publishing skill to make you guys go into full-blown hysteria. What next, a news story about exploding dentures and then everyone will be required to submit to a dental x-ray before boarding?
I know - you guys can plant a story about explosive clothing and then the public humiliation will be complete as everyone is strip and cavity searched at the gate...

Submitted by Anonymous on

I feel as though I am taken hostage every time I am forced fly..I don't take an airline for fun anymore - it's just too much hassle and nonsense.
I reacently went through the airport at Dallas, and I did not realize that I still had my pocketknife and lighter in my laptop bag - in fact I didn't even notice until I was past security and trying to get all the crap I had to pull out back in. I was openly harassed by two TSA agents because the commercial mouthwash bottle I had carried on didn't have a volume rating, which was "obviously" my fault at least according to them. I was literally told I should make my purchasing choices based on what is convenient for them to screen..
How stupid of me not to arrange my choices based on what the TSA would like me to buy. Foolish me, I thought I still lived in a free country..
Imagine my surprise when I went to put the rest of my stuff away and found I had a 5 1/2 knife and a Colibri high-altitude lighter in my possession - sure am glad they got my mouthwash though, wouldn't want to be having unauthorized fresh breath while traveling...

Submitted by Anonymous on

I only fly four or five times a year, but twice last year my luggage was "mishandled" so I'd like to carry on forthgoing. However, I don't want all my 3.4 oz/100 ml bottles confiscated - never have I seen such a conflict.

Is it 3 oz/90 ml or 3.4 oz/100 ml???

Most small bottles of shampoos/hair jels/soaps etc seem to come in 3.4 oz - the 100ml (because everyone but us is metric.)It just seems that someone decided the 3-1-1 was a cute marketing tool, even though tsa's internatioanl acceptance is 3.4 oz/100 ml according to releases on this site. However, many airports have signs with the 3 oz/90 ml restrictions. Just too hard to make the correction/update/confirm? Too much invested in signage/training to realize that 3oz is not 100ml?

Any chance this will be addressed once and for all - and security will be trained and signage will be consistant?

Sincerely,

Waiting to pack....

Submitted by Anonymous on

Here's an idea about the liquid policy. Are there really liquid explosives one could drink? Why not have the person take a drink out of any container they are bringing with them?

I'm also not sure where the line between liquid and non-liquid begins and ends. For example, I was leaving on a plane super early in the morning so I bought some bean and cheese burritos on the way. I was quite sure TSA was going to make me toss them, yet they didn't. Don't get mre wrong, I'm not complaining that you guys didn't. I guess I was just shocked that something the consistency of shampoo was let through when shampoo itself wasn't. Now, I don't know if I can pack foods to take on the plane with me or not. Is Jello okay? Are beans okay in every airport or just some? I'm not being flip, just meal planning.

Submitted by Anonymous on

to TSA TSO NY: you said:

"Yousef got batteries past airport security during his December 11 test bombing of Philippine Airlines Flight 434 by hiding them in hollowed-out heels of his shoes. Yousef smuggled the nitroglycerin on board by putting it inside a contact lens solution bottle."

This is why you take off shoes & we limit liquids."

this is all good and grand and stuff, but you (and the other poster who referenced this incident) are neglecting to notice one major, MAJOR point here:

the incident on flight 434 happened on Dec. 11th 1994!!!!!

umm, hello!!!??? the stupid "remove shoes/3-1-1" rules WERE NOT established after this incident, they were established almost TEN YEARS after the fact!!! if you are going to keep referencing this incident as justification to the 3-1-1/no shoes policies, then WHY weren't these policies established in 1994???? why wait after 2 ridiculously foiled attempts to start up this inane rule?????

Submitted by Anonymous on

Please do something to help people on dehydrating medications. This should be considered a disability access issue. If I have to get on a national register of medically thirsty people, it would be better than nothing.

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSO TOM said: "TSA was given full authority to determine what goes on its prohibited items list. "

What a BS answer. If the TSA actually had such authority, you could provide a legal citation for the source of that authority. The TSA is simply acting illegally.

Submitted by Anonymous on

May I suggest the TSA permit beverages in 12oz. branded factory sealed cans to pass through security?

This would overcome a major objection to the current liquids policy, the inability to carry any refreshment, even water, through security. As TSA has stated, it is all a matter of risk management and the risk from sealed cans would appear to be minimal.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Are you more afraid of the TSA or the so called liquid bombing terrorists? With the kind of fearmongering promoted by the TSA, I'm more inclined to call them terrorists.

TSA = FUD -> Terror

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous on February 8, 2008 3:43 AM asked:
"Anonymous umm, hello!!!??? the stupid "remove shoes/3-1-1" rules WERE NOT established after this incident, they were established almost TEN YEARS after the fact!!! if you are going to keep referencing this incident as justification to the 3-1-1/no shoes policies, then WHY weren't these policies established in 1994???? why wait after 2 ridiculously foiled attempts to start up this inane rule?????"

As a TSO, I cannot answer the "why". You have a valid point, and I have seen other valid points made on this website (confiscated liquids in a non-hazmat bin etc)as well. "Why" they did not adopt the liquid policy in 1994, I don't know. But, the plot that was uncovered that lead to the adoption of the liquid policy in 2007 was very similar to Yousef's plan. The threat of terrorism is greater in the current time. Even after Richard Reid, the "all shoes off" policy was not at every airport, and appearantly from what I have read, it still isn't at every airport. I can tell you that my airport adopted the "all shoes off" policy at the same time the liquid policy went into effect. Does this answer your question? No. I am just a peon, I don't get to sit in on the decision making process. My guess though, would be that since 9/11/01, the government has been taking threats much more seriously.




"

Submitted by Anonymous on

1. Clearly there is a ton of response from the public. Now maybe the TSA could respond instead of hiding behind a policy based on scaring the public but is not backed up by any reputable science.

2. In Seattle, employees can walk in and out of the secured areas with their knapsacks, etc. particularly where a passenger is picking up their oversized baggage. Are their bags checked for liquids? Doesn't look like it.

3. As flight attendants move from being servers to being people onboard to ensure you are safe (no issue there), it takes a lot longer to get water. As other people have noted, it is dehydrating for the average person to fly let alone if you have a serious condition. And the cost of water in the airport is ridiculous. Either get onboard with the airlines to cough up more water when people board and throughout the flight, or relax the policy.

3. Like others, there have been times where I forgot about a Swiss Army Knife, toiletry bag, etc., and was not flagged.

4. Over half of the TSA people I encounter are beyond rude (and I am from NY!). If you complain, they threaten to detain you enough to miss your flight or get you on some blackball list that will cause endless issues for you whenever you fly going forward.

At the end of the day, the TSA represents process for the sake of process, as opposed to really ensuring the safe travels of all passengers.

On another note, the reasons why people do not want to check bags are as follows:

1. Stuff has been stolen out of my checked bags multuple times. When I used to work in retail, we had lockers outside of the store floor and were only allowed to take in a clear purse-like thing to minimize shop lifting. Why can't the TSA institute something like that?

2. Baggage gets "lost" or "damaged" - whether it is the airline's fault, or TSA's - I don't care. Work with the airlines to get it fixed. Maybe less people will take everything with them as carry-ons.

3. It takes at least 30 minutes after you land to get your bag off of the conveyer belt. Speed it up and maybe you will have less people carrying on everything.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I think the TSA needs to make sure all their employees follow the liquid rules for disabled persons.

My husband has a medical condition which requires he have water on his person at all times (no saliva glands due to cancer). He carries medical documentation of this condition always. Every time we have to fly out of SLC, the screeners and supervisors take his liquid, make him go through a very embarrassing and lenghty pat-down and treat him as if he's guilty of something.

Every time, we show medical verification of this condition, but the TSA people say they don't care and won't accept it. The last time this happened, my husbands throat closed and he almost died!!!!!

TSA, get it together....read your own regulations on water being allowed for a verifiable medical condition!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Same questions, still no response from the "Great and Wonderful TSA."

Don't look behind the curtain!

How about a response TSA!

Are confiscated liquids hazardous or not?

Either they are or are not. It cannot be both ways.

Your people manning the disposal containers should be dressed out in explosive protection suits and a hazmat team should be in attendance.

So are you saying that these things are in fact not hazardous?

Security Theater at its most entertaining!

Submitted by Anonymous on

So maybe binary explosives are mainly movie nonsense (die hard was still a good movie) but binary NON-EXPLOSIVE AGENTS are certainly no myth and certainly not complicated.

I'll avoid even the simplest direct suggestion (yes, i fear big brother) but it's pretty trivial to kill or disable everyone on a plane not wearing a full hazmat suit. This is WITHOUT the millions in funding that went into 9/11. Nothing the TSA is doing would stop it either.

Yet ... they continue to steal (that's what I consider it) my water and force me to either beg for those tiny bottles on the plane or buy a $4 water inside the terminal.

There are SO many huge gaping holes in the "safety" policy that they're inconviniencing virtually all travelers for very VERY little added security.

Submitted by Bo Jinka on

So, what are you doing about
the perfume bottle filled with
dimethyl mercury (delayed
poison) or a nerve agent
(planes crash)?

Everyone is so concerned about
pyro, there are other angles.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Left Seattle with my two 3 ounce bottles in a 1 gallon ziplock bag in carry on...no problem. Return flight from Denver the next day and no 1 gallon bags are allowed...only 1 quart. Thank goodness the Denver airport had many 1 quart bags available for free.

TSA, this is a perfect example of an inconsistency that creates confusion and distrust.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I wouldn't mind the liquids policy nearly as much if TSA would clear up confusion regarding whether toiletries need to be in the original packaging or not. I have witnessed other passengers have clear plastic travel bottles taken away because they were not in the original packaging, even though they were clearly less than 3 oz, and in the approved ziplock bags. The reason? They were not in the original packaging, according to the screener. This makes travelling whole lot more unpleasant than it needs to be if you are someone with a strong preference for certain products that don't happen to be available in travel sizes. Also, it seems that many screeners have different ideas about whether something needs to be in original packaging or not. I asked one screener the last time I travelled, who said that's not really a rule. Once, I was told by the gentleman I was next to on the plane that he had a jar of some toiletry tossed because, despite the fact that it was smaller than 3 oz, and clearly marked, it was "an unusual shape". TSA, please, please clear up this confusion amongst your screeners. I feel that I am constantly in jeopardy of having my stuff tossed arbitrarily, even if I follow all the rules.

Submitted by Anonymous on

SRA... Maybe it's about time to start following the rules of the TSA liquid policy, and then you wouldn't have to suffer getting your "expensive hair products" taken away. remember, anything 3.4 ounces or less you can take with you, as long as it fits into a 1 quart plastic ziplock bag and it is able to be sealed.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Mike-s.. Here's and answer for you.. If you don't like the policy that TSA has set for your saftey.. the DON"T FLY.. Find some other means to travel, and then you won't have that problem.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

Submitted by Winston_of_minitruth on

Did anyone else notice that the amount of liquid explosive being used was on the absurd side? Now, notice how little liquid we are able to bring past the security point. Next, think about how many drinks come in 3oz containers, let alone how many come in a size smaller than 12oz. Now, how is it that something that an agent has determined not to be a threat is not permissible to bring on board an airplane? Surely, there must be some reason as to why the TSA agent is given enough trust, by the powers that be, to determine that 3oz of any particular liquid is safe or unsafe, but any more than that and it's just madness! I understand that the ones on the floor have the tough job of keeping things safe. I mean it. It is a tough job...for the ones that actually do their job. I just think that there needs to be more stringent qualifications for becoming a TSA agent. Maybe even the same procedures as getting to law enforcement. After all, you are doing the same basic things that the police are doing. You should be trained, as well as paid, as they are. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about these ludicrous restrictions. I'd prefer to have a 12oz cup of decent coffee to a 3oz cup of nasty vending machine coffee...all because of some overreaction to a barely plausible scenario. After all, if something made in factory conditions is not even predictable to enough to work, then I can't imagine how plausible it would be for some nutjob in his garage, with his "chemical ali home version," to be.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I wish the TSA liquid limit was 4 oz. because the smalles bottles of contact lens solutions are 4 oz.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Why is it so important that I only be able to fit my 3.4oz/100ml containers in a quart sized baggie? And why can't I bring my 3oz bottle of cologne on the plane just because it's in a glass bottle?

Submitted by Anonymous on

How about a response TSA!

Are confiscated liquids hazardous or not?

Either they are or are not. It cannot be both ways.

Your people manning the disposal containers should be dressed out in explosive protection suits and a hazmat team should be in attendance.

So are you saying that these things are in fact not hazardous?

Security Theater at its most entertaining!

You guys afraid to answer this simple question?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Although I realize that there are definetly holes in the logic of the 3-1-1 rule for liquid, it seems to me that the policy has been in place long enough that if you're stupid enough not to know that you cant take you 12 oz $300 bottle of lotion through the checkpoint, then you deserve to have it taken away. Get over yourselves, your whining only takes up the time of other passengers who were competent enough to read the rules that are posted ALL OVER THE LINE THROUGH THE CHECKPOINTS.

Submitted by Anonymous on

The insanity must stop.

Yesterday I flew Continental Airlines on a business trip to Terra Haute, Indiana. Today, on the way back to Houston, I was stopped by a TSA employee for carrying-on a too-large toothpaste tube. Never mind that I had carried-on the exact same toothpaste tube from Houston to Terra Haute the day before; never mind the existence of ubiquitous signage (“LESS THAN 3 OZ. ONLY! USE PLASTIC BAGS TO CONTAIN ALL LIQUIDS! VIOLATORS SUBJECT TO CLOSED-DOOR PAT DOWN!); and never mind that I had a 12 oz. bottle of contact solution that was not confiscated because of its specious designation as “an over-the-counter medical item.”

What ought to be minded is this: I got on the plane wearing steel-toed boots.

Carbon steel. In my boots. Big hunks of it. Metal with a Rockwell Hardness value of >100 that I could have bludgeoned fellow passengers to death with. Or, even better, metal that could have been previously sharpened and removed in-flight, to the immediate chagrin of all passengers and staff in the surrounding area.

To summarize: toothpaste prohibited, blunt metal object acceptable.

I think the policy of strictly controlling carry-on goods in domestic flights must change. It doesn’t have to stop, and it doesn’t have to be relaxed into non-existence. But the insanely relentless stickling for the minutiae must stop. It drives up costs, irritates consumers, and (obviously) is none-too-effective.

This rant was not meant to provide an alternative solution to this problem, which is one that I acknowledge to be logistically complex for airlines and emotionally touchy for many Americans. But because of the lack of efficacy in the policy (see above and other numerous examples in the blogosphere / news media), I have to publicly protest the current, onerous airline security restrictions.

Submitted by 14th Amendment ... on

I have been following this blog since the day it came on line and have yet to see a response from the TSA or a TSA blogger that actually justifies any of the inconvenience they put passengers through in order to fly. No one wants unsafe skies, but to think that restricting someone from having hair gel or chapstick is going to make a measurable difference is absurd. What I have seen though is that I am not the only one who finds the TSA and its unconstitutional searches and seizures as well as the patriot act that made them possible beneath contempt. I also have found that I am not the only one who, because of the TSA, chooses not to fly when there is any other reasonable choice to get there somewhat comforting. There are other Americans out there who value their privacy and their rights as much as I do.

Submitted by VanVleet's on

The problem with the TSA, as a whole, is the knee jerk reaction to anything. I once had hair gel in a clear, 3oz container, but not in a plastic bag. They took it; I asked "why?" The TSA guys says, "because it is not in a clear plastic bag" I said, "but it is in a clear plastic bottle" He says, "the bag limits the quantity of the liquid" I said, "no, the CONTAINER limits the quantity of the liquid and if I actually had it in a quart size bag, I would have more liquid than is in this jar!" No using reasoning with these people. What keeps me from taking a quart size bag and filling it with a liquid? What keeps me from taking several containters and filling them with the same "explosive" material and putting them in a quart size bag? This liquid rule is non-sensical. Same goes for the shoes; one mentally unstable guy tries to light is shoe on fire, which had some plastic explosives in it, and all of a sudden all shoes, even flip flops (stupid!) have to go. You can't detonate plastic explosives with a match! How did he get matches on the plane anyways? Maybe you should focus there first.

Submitted by VanVleet's on

The problem with the TSA, as a whole, is the knee jerk reaction to anything. I once had hair gel in a clear, 3oz container, but not in a plastic bag. They took it; I asked "why?" The TSA guys says, "because it is not in a clear plastic bag" I said, "but it is in a clear plastic bottle" He says, "the bag limits the quantity of the liquid" I said, "no, the CONTAINER limits the quantity of the liquid and if I actually had it in a quart size bag, I would have more liquid than is in this jar!" No using reasoning with these people. What keeps me from taking a quart size bag and filling it with a liquid? What keeps me from taking several containters and filling them with the same "explosive" material and putting them in a quart size bag? This liquid rule is non-sensical. Same goes for the shoes; one mentally unstable guy tries to light is shoe on fire, which had some plastic explosives in it, and all of a sudden all shoes, even flip flops (stupid!) have to go. You can't detonate plastic explosives with a match! How did he get matches on the plane anyways? Maybe you should focus there first.

Submitted by Anonymous on

My biggest issue with the TSA liquids policy is the lack of knowledge of the TSA agents of what their own web-site states as what is "acceptable" to carry-on the plane. Eye drops and saline solution are listed on the TSA site as follows:

"Eye drops - You are allowed to carry a 3 oz. or smaller container of eye drops in a clear, one-quart plastic bag. There is no restriction on the amount you may carry, but containers greater than 3 oz. must be declared to the Security Officer and cannot be carried in your clear, one-quart bag."

"Saline solution - You are allowed to carry up to 3 oz., of eye drops in a clear, one-quart plastic bag. Volumes greater than 3 oz. must be declared to the Security Officer and cannot be carried in your clear, one-quart bag."

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-i...

I have had both items confiscated by the TSA because they were >3.4 oz. I followed to instructions and declared them to TSA first. No go.

What gives?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Hi there, this is a very good blog to have, a very neat idea really. I'd have a question: what happens to all those water bottles, make-ups and tooth paste you confiscate? If you really consider those to pose a risk to security, you cannot just throw them to trash, can you? I mean those liquids could pose a risk to environment too? How are those destroyed?

Submitted by Anonymous on

I sent this suggestion to the TSA by e-mail a few months ago and got a nonsence answer that must have been computer generated. Let´s see if the blog works...

Please post metric conversions of the measurements on the TSA website. It took me a long time to find out that 3 oz are converted as 100 mL (oddly, since oz are a weight measurement and mL, volume), and I could not find out what a quart was anywhere. Obviously, we can Google for the information, but it would make our lives a lot easier to have it on the website.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I was blown away to see a TSA employee waived through a security checkpoint at LAX with a large plastic bottle of liquid. How is that not a flaw in the system?

Submitted by Hans on

First off I have to come clean...as a weekly airline traveler I see the TSA as a joke. The amount of man power, resources, and federal funds that are wasted on daily basis makes me ill. The smoke and mirrors of trying to convince the public that we are right around the corner of another terrorist attack can only go on so long (7 years seems way too long to me). The time of a person hijacking a plane of passengers will not happen again. The passengers of any plane that is attempted to be taken over will do anything and everything in their power to stop/destroy the threat on the aircraft. We all now understand the consequences of someone taking over an aircraft, not just on the passengers, but also to the world outside that aircraft. Understanding that, I would like to talk about the dumbest rule that has come about as a result of the TSA's false sense of security...NO WATER!!! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS!!??? Isn't the human body made out of water? Doesn't my doctor tell me to drink more water? Now I can't bring it through a check point. The water companies selling 4 dollar bottles of water must be thrilled. Maybe we should have them pay the salaries of the TSA agents instead of MY TAX DOLLARS. Yes, that amazes me that I pay the government to make my travel experience a weekly pain in the ass. But I regress...WATER!! It is Water. OK...I would even understand having to take a drink at the security line to prove that it isn't some secret spy compound that will knock the plane out of the sky. My only hope is with the upcoming election the new administration will come to their senses and realize how over reactional we have been in the years following 9/11. Maybe then we start to take back some of the rights that have been taken from us (while we as a public said OK, sure, take more of my rights while you are at it...did I mention I have to take off my shoes every week too?). But really...WATER...give me back my water...it won't be that dangerous, really.

Submitted by Anonymous on

After passing through TSA monitors dozens of times in the last few months I can confirm that some of your employees - especially those who separate passengers into different screening lanes - are control freaks.

But here's the question no one can answer - if you have just ONE 3-oz liquid, why does it have to be confiscated if it's not in a baggie? Does TSA own stock in ZipLoc bags? And how is it that you expect us not to find this policy ridiculous?

Submitted by GlobeHop2000 on

Does a peanut butter and jelly sandwich contain liquid by TSA standards? What if it's on the soggy side? (I'm serious about this. I like to take a PB&J sandwich with me on the plane. Can it be confiscated by TSA?)


P.S. The links in this blog don't seem to work in Firefox 2.0.0.12. When you click on them, nothing happens.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Since you guys are unlikely to get rid of the insane liquid ban. I would suggest that you create a way for travelers to get their items sent to them, becuase in effect you are forcing people to throw away possibly expensive items. No one is going to forefeit a 600$ plane trip to keep their 30$ shampoo. I also suggest that if you take someones Coke, you should give them one. This policy could be effected to include all items found to be potentially dangerous Replace, or transfer.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Your liquids policy is a farce. It is intended just to dumb the public into thinking that flying is safe. do you really think that a terrorists would take a bottle of explosives on board? Do you really think that less than 3.5 ounces of explosives is OK? You should have an explosive detection device, not take everyone's tooth paste or shampoo. THere are so many ways around this current system is it ridiculous. You are not really going to catch anyonen with this useless policy.

Submitted by Anonymous on

As long as this restriction on liquids lunacy continues, please rein in the DIA TSO that insists on holding up travlers' baggies for all to see as an example of proper packing of liquids. What gives this yahoo the idea that it's okay to display traveler's personal property, w/o their permission? And where is the supervisor that has enough common sense to stop him?

Submitted by Anonymous on

I recently flew. My after-shave cream was in a 4 oz travel bottle, which fit appropriately into my quart plastic bag of liquids. I was told to throw it away. First, I squeezed some of the cream into an extra baggie and then threw the bottle away.

I was then told I couldn't bring on the baggie with the skin cream on. When I asked why, I was told "because we don't know what's in it."

What? I could have carried the skin cream through in a 3 oz bottle. Would anyone know what it was? What is the difference between 2 oz of skin cream in a 3 oz unlabeled bottle and 2 oz of skin cream in a baggie?

Submitted by Anonymous on

I can carry a screw driver or pliers in my carry on as long as they are not more than 7 inches long, but not carry my bottled water with me past security?!?!?!?!

There is something wrong with that scenario. I think TSA needs to reevaluate their policies.

Its just stupid.

Submitted by A DHS Employee on

Anonymous annoyed said...

Insurgent said: you might want to do some research on the physical properties of liquid nitrogen.

I say: Why? I don't want to build a bomb...but that guy did and he used a bottle of saline solution to get it on board the plane.

Annoyed:
"Insurgent" was razzing you for making the absurd claim that liquid nitrogen could be carried in a bottle used for saline solution. It boils (changes to a gas) at -321 degrees F. Get it?

Submitted by Not Fooled By T... on

Have you guys looked at the video posted as the "proof" of what liquid explosives can do?
Watch it again and look at the charge in the center, note the size and shape of the device prior to detonation. Watch closely the second half of the video, the explosion in slow-mo. Anyone even remotely familiar with explosives, or for that matter special effects will tell you that the shape of the cloud indicates the path of the shockwave, and also is indicative of either the shape of the charge or the container it's in. They will also tell you that the presence or absence of a fireball is an infallible indicator of the chemical composition of the charge.
This explosion was directed from underneath, in the box the clorox bottle is sitting on, further the presence of the red fireball indicates a petroleum based component that is secondary to the primary charge, which is why there is a slight delay before the fireball appears after the initial upward blast. If in fact the blast had originated from the Clorox bottle the initial blast would have expanded to the sides and included the fireball as the liquid went to vapor and expanded in all directions. Also, the fact that the initial blast travels upward, then the fireball travels at a completely different angle slightly afterward is a clear indicator that the bottle is not the source of the explosion, but an accelerant that compounds the explosion.
Short version - this video is not of a liquid based explosion, but is staged to appear so...
The only remaining question is why? I’d be willing to bet it’s because your guys needed a new “boogie-man” to scare the public, after all people only stay scared for so long...... Without a new “boogie-man” you guys could not sustain the illusion of necessity – and you guys don’t want to lose the multi-billion dollar budget now do you?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Two comments on the liquids:
1) Follow the approach of the EU, provide baggies if you feel there are two many liquids in one passenger baggie (e.g. mouthwash, land lotion, shampoo) to be easily visible.
2) End this policy about not be able to drink the liquid on one side of the check v. the other. If I am running up and forget to drink my water before the scan (on those rare times when the line is short), why can't I drink it on the other side. If they see my drink either way? Makes zero difference to passenger safety just TSA being silly. If it really was explosive, I'd be dead in steps any way from the poison.

Pages