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 This page may contain information that is outdated and may not reflect current policy or programs.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

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


Submitted by Mlkauf on

Sorry, but I haven't read through all of these to see if this idea has been mentioned already or not, and I’m not a big blogger either. I travel once a week for work, and have noticed how passengers become so impatient with TSA and a lot of times these same people think that it's the TSA fault that the lines are so long. Americans want everything, right now or yesterday, and don’t want to wait for anything. It’s a fast food nation. Granted, in my opinion, TSA employees have what I call a "shoot the breeze" job, where they can easily be perceived as doing such, instead of working. But I know that they are doing their best to screen everyone and their baggage, to keep us all safe when travelling through the air.

You know all those signs and TV monitors telling you how to pack and how to breeze through security without any problems? Well no one reads those, no one listens to them, they are simply ignored because people do not know that they contain and important message that will get you through security faster. I see this every week. Heck, sometimes people make fun of it and laugh, instead of paying attention to it, then they get mad at the TSA when they get yelled at for screwing something up during the screening process. No one listens to the TSA when they start yelling at the lines because people are putting their boarding passes through the x-ray, not removing their shoes, or doing this or that wrong. Even when people put their boarding pass through the x-ray machine, they STILL act like its TSA’s fault for not telling them that. What the heck? My solution may not be the nicest one in the world, and we certainly don’t want to offend or upset anyone. And worst of all, we don’t want to put any kind of responsibility on the traveler to make themselves less ignorant of the screening process prior to heading to the airport, in this post 9/11 era. Well here goes…

I call it the “end of the line” process. If somebody screws something up during the screening process, and I mean anything, simply send them to the end of the line. I was in the military and I believe in training the masses by punishing the masses. I guarantee you that the person in front me today that put her boarding pass through the x-ray machine will never ever make that mistake again if she had been sent to the end of the line to do it all over again, and subsequently missed her flight! Humans learn from their mistakes, this is a fact of life. Why not, use this fact to increase the learning curve, and decrease the wait times at airports, by increasing the flow at the screening areas? Yes, this is easier said than done, and maybe the view is not worth the climb. Larger airports would have to redesign their security screening areas and general processes, with new routes put in at the entrance and exit of each x-ray machine, in order to facilitate sending people to the end of the line. Don’t forget to put one at the ID checkpoint for the folks that walk up to it with their ID’s buried in their wallets, in their purses, etc, who “had NO IDEA that they would need their ID to get through security.” And don’t even get me started on people not knowing the 3-1-1 for liquids rule!!!

Don’t get me wrong, I do feel bad for the 80-year old couple that is flying for the first time in over 20 years to see their great grandchildren for the first time. The old couple may not have internet, or any means to be publicly educated on the process. But they obviously have children, grandchildren, or somebody that can tell them what to expect when they get to the airport. In this case, I think that everyone must be treated equally first, then down the line, certain exceptions can be made. And here’s another idea… hire more TSA workers to stand out at the front of the screening line and offer a quick overview of airport screening 101. These employees could help the old couple and the folks that get sent to the end of the line because they had no idea that they were not allowed to bring a 2-liter of Mountain Dew through the checkpoint! Maybe even a small advertising campaign to promote the “end of the line” idea, and use a little scare tactic for the general public.

Thanks for keeping us safe and for creating this blog. I look forward to seeing folks in front of me sent to the “end of the line” in the future when they screw up due to their own ignorance and lack of desire for information!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Just so all the civilians know - if you are posting on here and complaining - chances are you are now on the watchlist for being a "malcontent"....

Think I'm crazy? This is just another means for for big brother to focus on the trouble makers, those people who won't just accept what they are told and have the unpatriotic audacity to think for themselves..

Next time you go through a security checkpoint with the little SSS on your ticket - you will know why.

Submitted by Udirtysoso on

We cant bring sealed water or drinks. But The vendors bring in all they want. It goes right through the X-ray then sold to us. Why??? I know. It's classified right? Want us to like TSA? Quit thinking we're stupid.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Since liquid prescriptions are allowed through security what is to prevent terrorists from putting their hazardous liquids into prescription bottles?

Submitted by Anonymous on

just curious what happened to my post last week that showed the flaw in the system that allows passengers to carry a gallon of 151 proof duty free liquor onto a plane without having to go thru security. also why should a terrorist worry about sneaking a bomb onto a plane when most airlines now sell duty free items like large bottles of alcohol based perfumes and magnum bottles of high proof alcohol scotch during the flight that both can used to create a molotov cocktail bomb.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Question: by TSA standards, is cheese a "liquid"?

There is no food served on board for very long flights now, and I would like to bring a nice cheese sandwich (real cheese, not the "Cheese in pressurized containers" the TSA website talks about), but I am confused at exactly what point of "pastiness" the TSA starts to classify stuff as a liquid. Maybe they could give us guidelines, like how many days I can age my brie before they consider it a liquid.

Or maybe, just maybe, they could hire smart well trained people who talk to passengers and to screen them instead of inventing stupid rules that bother every one and do not work. After all, I can still bring in a good 500 mL of liquid over my breats...

Submitted by Anonymous on

I have no problem with the 3-1-1 rule, if you want to take something larger, then put in in your stowed luggage.

HOWEVER, I find it ridiculous that on an international flight, a potential "evil do-er" can purchase alcohol in the duty free section, then take these liter bottles on a plane without any problems. Growing up in the UK and hearing about "Molotov cocktails" used in Ireland on a weekly basis. I think it is laughable that we consider 4oz of toothpaste or mouthwash dangerous, but liters of alcohol are OK.

Submitted by Anonymous on

3oz of Sarin or Vx in liquid form are easily disguised in your toiletries and the screeners would never know.

For those of you who don't know what Sarin and Vx are, please take a moment to google them.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that they are readily available on the black market?

Q: How do you stop a terrorist who is bent on killing himself?

A: You don't.

Submitted by Anonymous on

How about a response TSA, it's been weeks! Let's get a dialogue going here, right...

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

Ok, great. Your x-rays can't tell the difference between Gatorade, eye drops, water, acetone, sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide. And TATP causes a vigorous explosion. We get it.

But you TSA guys have to be seriously kidding yourselves if you think that you can make TATP out of acetone, hydrogen peroxide, and sulfuric acid ***ON AN AIRPLANE***. You may as well just admit that you don't have any chemists working for you, because this is just completely ridiculous. Get a real job (one where I'm not paying your salary with my taxes) or take some remedial science classes. Truly embarrassing.

Submitted by L C PHX on

every resriction has been created for a reason and if a TSO takes away a resricted item or an item that is over the 3.4 ounce limit you shouldnt be angry.PACK YOUR ITEMS THE RIGHT WAY.dont bring knives or big liquid containers.your bag will be checked again and you will take longer to get to your gate.but the main idea is safety .its obvious that you as a passenger do not know everyone on that plane,so you need to ask yourself "do i want a complete stranger to come in passed the check point with a dangerous item "?,you do not know know what others are capable of and its better to be cautious than sorry

Submitted by Anonymous on

if you know you cant take liquids past the checkpoint dont try'll just slow you down

Submitted by Marshall on

Interesting that apparently none of the TSAers on this site have information about this:

Japan has had this technology for quite a while and I believe it was the Kipper himself who said it doesn't work, but now TSA is touting that it will be in existence by the end of this year to "protect" us.

Submitted by Lynn on

In response to Marshall:
"Interesting that apparently none of the TSAers on this site have information about this:

Japan has had this technology for quite a while and I believe it was the Kipper himself who said it doesn't work, but now TSA is touting that it will be in existence by the end of this year to "protect" us."

Marshall, I think you have this confused with puffers. The Bottled Liquid scanners are effective and are used to test liquids like medicines that passengers declare are over the 3 ounce limit.

Submitted by Lancifer on

These quotes are from the very same page about the very same policy regarding liquids bought at the duty free shops:

"The tamper-evident bag is not currently accepted through U.S. checkpoints."

"On nonstop flights bound for the US, duty-free liquids purchased in an international airport will be permitted through the checkpoint only if they meet U.S. requirements for the use of tamper-evident bags."

Which is it? Do you accept these tamper-evident bags, or do you not accept them? This is from the site. This is stated here. It's contradictions like this that complicate matters for everyone. Is there something that the TSA knows that the rest of the world doesn't? Is there a reason that the TSA standard has to be different from the internationally accepted standards? It would stand to reason that if something is safe enough for most countries in Europe (where there actually is a high potential for terrorist activity), then it should be safe enough for the US.

The rule is clear for flights that have a connecting flight to the US. It's just not so clear for nonstop flights to the US. If it isn't accepted, then say so. There is no need to complicate it.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I saw a man easily in his 90's and in a wheelchair, pushed by who I presume to be his elderly wife. TSA took away his water. The poor wife started crying and pleading about how dehydrated her husband gets. But TSA unceremoniously took and threw it away, instructing him to buy another water bottle as soon as he cleared security.

I also saw (and heard) a very irate, inconsolable baby. The mother was beside herself. The flight from PHL to Boston was it's usual five or so hours delayed, and they were out of babyfood, because TSA confiscated half of their babyfood at security. There was of course, nothing to feed the baby.

The last one happened to me. I'm an attorney and came straight from court. I was very professionally dressed in a black suit, with a fully lined, lace camisole. The male TSA employee ordered me to take my jacket off, which I did and understand. However, then he ordered me a special hand search because I was "inapprpropriately dressed!!" Well, you're the one that made me remove my jacket. I was furious, humilated, and of course, delayed unnecessarily. I normally would have complained, but even a U.S. lawyer is too scared of TSA to ask him his name to register a complaint. I was too scared of being put on some myseterious black list.

The system is more broken than ever. And I have little hope of it getting fixed.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I was flying out of San Francisco with my husband, and we packed food for our cross-country flight (6 hours plus a 2 hour drive from the airport to our house). We had just gone to Whole Foods and purchased bread and Almond butter, fruit, cheese, meat and mustard.

Mustard and Almond butter do not come in small 3-0z or smaller packages. I asked my husband if we should spread the mustard on the bread and then pack it in our checked baggage. The Almond butter was a harder call, it was for a snack with the apples and couldn't be spread on in advance. should i spread that on some bread too and pack up its container as well?

"No" was his reasoned reply: first, neither one is a liquid or a gel. second, both could break in our luggage and cause a huge mess. Since they wouldn't be taken as a liquid or a gel, we should just carry them on.

When we went through security, they confiscated both! We asked them why they were taking things that are not on the list, that are neither liquid nor gel, and that are brand new and have never been opened. They had no answer.

They just asked us to please pack up and move along. We were flabbergasted! We didn't understand and asked for an explanation again. they didn't care, but looked at the bottles for something to prove their point. Finally the woman said 'See, it says butter!' Right, i explained, but butter isn't a liquid or a gel, and this butter is made from nuts!

Mustard can be argued to have water in it. But Almond butter? It is just ground almonds! Same as Peanut butter only it can be eaten by people allergic to peanuts.

Can you please explain?

Submitted by Anonymous on

yes liquids can be made into a bomb Ramsey Yusef did on a Philippine Airlines in DEC of 1994. Do you also remember he was one of the terrorist of 9/11. You people seem to forget what happened on 9/11. What if today was 9/11? Would you then follow the policy for liquids,or just bury your head in the sand and pretend that it can't happen?

Submitted by Anonymous on

I think you're missing a critical point about confiscating PORTIONS of baby food. If the stuff is potentially dangerous then you should probably confiscate it all and not allow any to be brought past security. I understand that we have to take strong measures for our protection, but confiscating a portion of a baby's supply of food doesn't seem like it's going to accomplish anything except frustrating new parents. Why not require the airlines to provide adequate nourishment with contingency planning for delays. And while you're making new rules, put a cap on the price they can charge for the stuff. It's not for profit, it's for security.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonomous said:They just asked us to please pack up and move along. We were flabbergasted! We didn't understand and asked for an explanation again. they didn't care, but looked at the bottles for something to prove their point. Finally the woman said 'See, it says butter!' Right, i explained, but butter isn't a liquid or a gel, and this butter is made from nuts!

Mustard can be argued to have water in it. But Almond butter? It is just ground almonds! Same as Peanut butter only it can be eaten by people allergic to peanuts.

San Fransisco screeners are actually private and not TSA but they follow the same rules as we do across the country. Peanut butter, yogurt, mustard, jellies and jams, are all the consistency of a gel or paste. If you can pour, spread, or smear the substance it's not permitted in containers above the 3.4 oz limit. The best answer I can give is if you question it as a possible liquid, rather than take a chance on losing it, place it in your checked baggage.

TSA screener

Submitted by Anonymous on

A recent article in the New York Times cautions parents that the exemption to liquids and gels made for baby food was not absolute - there is still a limit to how much you may bring along, though that limit is somewhat vague and ill-defined. The article has a nice back and forth between the parents and some TSA spokesperson, and it basically all comes down to TSA can make judgement calls on how much is too much.

At the end of the article, however, I'm completely flabbergasted that no one has once discussed security or what it has to do with the baby food. I don't know about you, but the last time I checked, TSA's sole job is to make sure no one blows up, hijacks, or otherwise disturbs any of the literally thousands of flights leaving US airports each day. From the way the TSA spokesperson talks about it, their job is to enforce the rules, which are completely arbitrary, without regard to their sole task: security. No one thought the doctors could have explosives in their baby food. Nor did anyone think that only allowing them some of their baby food was going to make people safer or, if the food were an explosive, would it limit the danger.

So, I ask this, what the hell is the point?

Submitted by Anonymous on

I think people should be smart and read what they can take on a plane. They take the time to write on this blog. Then maybe TSA would't steal their toiletries or maybe TSA should test all liguids,so if they didn't test for explosive you can keep you hair product or toothpaste.That should make the lines move.I have a better idea, maybe the airlines should enfore their carry-on rules, size and number of bags.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I have seen several people complain about the legal basis for the TSA doing what is does..
It's time you folks realize that the only legal support they need is the men with guns. Our country has been hijacked by people who think that researching the Constitutionality of an issue means determining what linguistic acrobatics will be needed to justify it - no thought is given to whether or not it is right.
The TSA, along with the DEA, the ATF, the FBI, the NSA, and the rest of the armed alphabet soup agencies do what they do because there is no one who can tell them no.
This blog is to give a disgruntled public a place to vent, the illusion that you have some say. At the end of the day you will do what you are told or you will be jailed or shot - that is the reality of today. Think I'm wrong?
Try to stand up and assert yout rights while in the custody of any of these armed groups - but get your affairs in order first...

Submitted by Anonymous on

Baby Food

Although not surprised by the story I was disappointed to find that a family recently had their supplu of baby food taken away because the TSA agent thought they had too much of it. As somebody who spent 7 hours with a 4 year old in an airport due to a delayed flight I can imagine how and why these folks wanted extra food for thei baby. This is food that you cannot purchase at ANY airport. It should be in the parents judgement to decide how much food to bring along...what if the baby is a tempermental eater and they need variety. What if they ended up crossing almost 3 meal times as we did. Should babies be forced into starvation by the TSA? Left to scream the entire flight because they are literally being deprived of nutrition?

Clearly TSA employees lack the appropriate training to make nutritional decisions and should not be permitted to do so.

We have a baby on the way and my gut instinct is that we will stay off of planes until we make the switch to table food rather than be forced to deal with this nonsense.

Submitted by Anonymous on

The comments by TSA's Kip about e Liquids have been taken down.

Why? Was it because his now missing point #4 was an embarassement and he could not support TSA's policy of stealing peoples water and other beverages?

How about an answer, why was his comments deleted?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Um... mustard and almond butter is a liquid or gel. I find it funny that you can not figure that out. Especially mustard, it is by far not solid lol... and the almond butter wake up that is not solid either. I think of a liquid or gel as something that needs a container to hold its shape. That will get your through airport security better now.

Submitted by Openyourminds 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!


they wouldn't need explosive protection suits as you so put it. Explosive material doesn't blow up byitself. You need a detonator, power source, and a switch. and if the liquid in the container appeared to have the aforementioned items it would not be lying around for disposal.

your IGNORANCE at its most entertaining!

Submitted by Gabriel on

what do you do with confiscated items? i'd like to pick up things i've left behind when i return. i fly out of SFO

Submitted by Anonymous on

For those of you who suspect that the TSA/airline employees are stealing your various oversized liquid products.....if you are talking about the Oakland Airport you are correct.
Upon a recent business trip to the Oakland Airport, I was approached by a guy in the parking lot (which seems to be terminally under construction) who had a entire van full of pint sized products, every thing from shaving creme to Chanel #9 - which according to the peddler were "voluntarily" surrendered by people at the security point. He didn't even bother to weed out those containers that were obviously used and only partially full.
The good news is that is that if you have to "voluntarily surrender" the items as you leave town, chances are you can re-purchase them upon your return, thanks to the efforts of your local TSA (in Oakland anyway.)

Submitted by Atp2007 on

Recently we returned from the UK thru Minneapolis. It was a short walk to go thru Immigration control, grab our bags from the carosel and pass thru Customs, all the while being watched by one US offical or another and never in areas where we could not be observed. We then dropped off the luggage with NW, and had to ge thru security again! This time they took all our bags apart and I had to unload all my camera equipment, something I did not have to do even when going thru security from right off the street elsewhere. The most aggravating part to travelers was that they were not letting Duty-Free alcohol thru because it was larger than 3 ounces! This was liquid bought after security checks elsewhere, was still sealed, that had just traveled from overseas on a large plane and was now switching to a much smaller domestic plane. By then it was oo late to put in in the checked luggage as that had already went down the belt. It's seems a stupid policy as there was never a time when they were unobserved, but at least people should be warned before they drop off their bags at the connection desk.

Submitted by Anonymous on

For all those complaining about the liquid, gel, aerosol ban...ask yourselves this:

What is better; to make a rule in the hope of preventing a tragedy or do nothing and have to answer the tough questions when that tragedy occurs? The inconvenience of some is worth the security of all!

People in the business of security can only make educated and researched decisions based on what is/isn't a realistic threat.

Do you really think the government wants to inconvenience passengers? The same passengers that put profit into the airline industry; the same industry that puts profit back into the government? Be realistic!

Submitted by Anonymous on

re: they wouldn't need explosive protection suits as you so put it. Explosive material doesn't blow up byitself. You need a detonator, power source, and a switch. and if the liquid in the container appeared to have the aforementioned items it would not be lying around for disposal.

The point remains, if the items are potentially dangerous they should be treated as such.

If they are not dangerous then they should not be confiscated.

What happened to Kips comments regarding liquids? Rmember point #4?

Submitted by Anonymous on

The problem with this whole thing is that
1. There is no published scientific study that shows the threat is valid.

2. It is enforced in a confusing and arbitrary manner. 3oz? 3.4oz? I have had 3oz bottles taken away because they did not say 3oz on them. I was harrassed at PDX for prescription medications being in a seperate bag from the 1qt toiletries bag. My epipen doesn't fit in a 1qt bag. Over-the-counter liquid meds are not supposed to be restricted, yet I saw a family at JFK having their cough syrup taken away. Targeting people with medical conditions is discrimination, pure and simple, immoral, and illegal.

4. There is no power in the hands of the people who are paying for this service. TSA screeners are rude and abusive to people who follow the rules as well as those who do not. I can go on the TSA website, print up the rules, and have a totally conflicting experience at the screening. Complaints do nothing to improve the situation, and increase the likelihood of abuse. There is no recourse for travelers, no consequences for the employees who are abusive, and no enforcement of consistency of policy. The people that take the time to learn your policy and do everything you say are treated no better than those who amazingly missed the policy change, and often have things taken away by undertrained screeners.

5. There is, strangely enough, no commercial support of TSA procedure. Someone, please, start selling TSA-approvable 3oz or 100ml empty bottles that are marked as such. I want to be able to travel carry-on only again. There could be kits with the quart bag and bottles included. Travel size toiletries are too small, regular are too large.

Submitted by Hypoglycemic - ... on


"To ensure the health and welfare of certain air travelers, in the absence of suspicious activity or items, greater than 3 ounces of the following liquids, gels and aerosols are permitted through the security checkpoint in reasonable quantities for the duration of your itinerary (all exceptions must be presented to the security officer in front of the checkpoint):

* Baby formula, breast milk, and juice
* All prescription and over-the-counter medications (liquids, gels, and aerosols) including KY jelly, eye drops, and saline solution for medical purposes;
* Liquids including water, juice, or liquid nutrition or gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition;

-- from the cited TSA list


Why do TSA screeners refuse my contact lens solution? It is an over-the-counter saline eye-drop solution.

How much medical information must one share with TSA before one can carry "Liquids including water..."?

Submitted by Dave X The First on

Kip's missive about liquids being banned because it is impossible for chemists to assemble a liquid explosive are still on the blog, but it is relatively inacessible because it scrolled off the top.

See Kip spin: "More on the Liquid Rules: Why We Do the Things We Do"

Also, you can find it off of the February 2008 link.

Someone who was good with blogging could make a "prior posts" link work.

Neil, the author could also update his post and add a pointer to Kip's attempt to explain this dumb liquids ban.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"they wouldn't need explosive protection suits as you so put it. Explosive material doesn't blow up byitself. You need a detonator, power source, and a switch. and if the liquid in the container appeared to have the aforementioned items it would not be lying around for disposal."


So based on your thoughts, unless I had a detonator with me my bottle of water would be perfectly safe to take on the aircraft.

Your logic is as good as the TSA's!

Submitted by Lawrence on

The liquid ban has never made sense and makes even less sense the way it is implemented. Here is why:

1 - You cannot carry a 1-qt bottle through security because it might be used to mix several chemicals to make an explosive mixture. Yet TSA will give you a 1-qt plastic bag that could be used for the same purpose. Or, you can purchase a 1-qt bottle of water after security and use it if you happen to be a terrorist. Conclusion: there is no valid reason to prohibit large empty bottles unless you are going to prohibit the sale of water in bottles, cokes in supersized containers,etc, AND unless you are going to check all luggage for plastic bags of all sizes.

2 - The 3.4-oz rule clearly applies to volume-ounces. Yet, toothpaste is measured in weight-ounces. I have measured the density of several brands of toothpaste, and you have to have almost five wt-oz of toothpaste to get to a volume of 3.4 vol-oz. Screeners have no clue of all this however, although one did tell me, when I tried to explain, that he knew all about the two kinds of ounces: he was a chemistry major. I trust not a highly successful chemistry major.

The TSA is asking for people not to take the screening seriously when they enforce such obviously silly rules, or enforce their rules in a silly manner. Even worse, spending time on silly rules distracts from the screening that might actually deter a terrorist. many times less is more, and that is certainly the case when you including screening procedures that do nothing to enhance security. When TSA has rules that make no sense, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that security is for show only, done so that they can say, "Well, we did all we could think of." after the next terrorist attack. Instead, they should try to think of something that might work.

Submitted by Bill on

Anyone else see the article on MSNBC about what TSA actually does with confiscated items? They sell them to state surplus agencies.

Submitted by NAM on

Actually, TSA doesn't sell them to state surplus agencies, we give them away to state surplus agencies and other non-profit entities that solicit them, in accordance with the federal General Services Administration directives for disposition of excess government property.

Sometimes, state surplus agencies or other non-profit entities turn around and sell the items for a profit, mind you, not a profit to the TSA, while others actually use the items in some way.

TSA Evolution Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

As someone who encounters TSA officers both in ATL and AVL (Asheville NC) I have to say that I have found them invariably courteous. I would however be most grateful for some clarification of the rules. Firstly the quart zip-lock bag: These are quite difficult to obtain in the UK. Is a resealable bag of similar dimension acceptable, or is the phrase "zip-lock" to be interpreted literally? (Believing the latter to be the case, I have just ordered 10 of them from the US). Secondly, the 3 fl. oz regulation: 3 US fl. oz is 88.75 ml, Will TSA officers accept containers of a volume less than or equal to 88.75 ml as equivalent to 3 US fl. oz, or must it state the US measurement on the container as well as the metric one (if the latter is the case, I will need to order more toiletries from the US). I have to confess to being somewhat apprehensive about this, and may very well pack all liquids in check-in luggage. This is somewhat of a problem as Delta normally fail to transfer my checked in luggage to arrive with my flight when I transfer for Asheville, and one is unable to shave etc until some gentleman arrives with my bag in the back of his pickup.
I have no wish in any way to critize TSA officers, who have no choice but to interpret the rules in the most literal and inflexible manner, personal discretion is I suspect something which might result in their losing their jobs. I merely wish to know exactly what the rules are, so that I am in a position exactly to comply therewith.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I just have one thing to say to all those individuals out there who believe that an explosive could not be created out of liquids and/or that a liquid explosive has never or could never be used on commercial aircraft: Look up the "Bojinka Plot" and find out that in 1996 it was not only proven feasible, but that liquuid explosives were successfully tested on board a commercial airliner.

Submitted by Anonymous on

@ Lawrence

You actually can take empty bottles through security. I do not know why you think you can not but you are aloud so your first point has no merit.

Your second point may not have merit either because I do not believe I have seen a toothpaste that is right on the border in regards to your measurement argument. I have seen either small travel size toothpastes or toothpastes that go from 4.6 oz and above. 4.6 oz is too close for comfort in regards to wt oz.

Just follow the rules and you will not have to be mad anymore by relinquishing your toothpaste. Have a nice day. Good job TSA!

Submitted by Anonymous on

Ang122, a TSA blogger, mentioned watching a demonstration of a sippy cup blowing up an airline seat.
While I applaud the nerve to demonstrate well-meaning concern for what would happen to an aircraft if a sippy cup exploded... Wow! Now I understand why we have these insane liquids rules. It's because TSA cannot differentiate between actual risk versus minimal risk. They espouse "what if liquid could become a bomb??? The terrorists might then sprout bombs from their urine or feces!! We better eliminate bathrooms on planes and in airports, and search people for thirst and toilet paper!!!".
Please Congress, protect us by reducing the amount of people who want to kill us for interfering in their countries, and stop letting the bureaucrats preach danger, while fantasizing reasons to protect their rather thin reason for being employed.
Ang122 - I'm sorry you feel threatened by sippy cupfuls of elaborately prepared explosive liquids staged in demonstrations. But, my right to carry a reasonably priced diet-pepsi while flying should not be impinged upon by your right to not understand reasonable scientific, social and constitutional risks and absolutes.