USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

TSA Travel Tips Tuesday - Aerosols

Tuesday, August 20, 2013
These are samples of several aerosol items that did not make it past the checkpoint in carry-on baggage and were surrendered to TSA at the checkpoint.

These are aerosol items that were surrendered to TSA at the checkpoint.

Tuesday’s TSA Travel Tip has to do with toiletries in aerosol containers.

Traveling to weddings, birthdays, job interviews, vacations and other special occasions often necessitates that travelers bring along an assortment of aerosol toiletry products that they use on a regular basis in their homes. Typically those products include salon-quality hairsprays, antiperspirants, shaving cream and body mists– typically in large aerosol containers.

TSA has determined that liquids, aerosols and gels, in limited quantities, are safe to bring aboard aircraft. So it is important to remember that all liquid, aerosol and gel items must be stored in containers 3.4 ounce or smaller. All of the 3.4 ounce containers must fit in a sealed 1-quart, clear plastic, zip-top bag, and only one plastic zip-top bag is permitted per passenger inside carry-on baggage.

If you want to travel with your full-size aerosol containers of antiperspirant, hairspray, suntan lotion, shaving cream, and hair mousse, you can do so by packing them in your checked baggage. That way, you’ll be sure to have your favorite toiletries with you when you arrive at your destination.

To ensure that you’ll make it to your destination with your large aerosol can, today’s tip is to pack them in your checked baggage. You can read more about our liquid policies here: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/liquids-rule

See you next Tuesday with more travel tips!

Lisa Farbstein
Guest Blogger & TSA Spokesperson

If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.

Comments

Submitted by RB on

How about some answers.

Why are 5 100ml bottles safe but 1 500 ml bottle is not?

Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?

TSA LGA rules make no sense and add nothing to airport screening except waste of good products.

Submitted by Anonymous on

The airlines charge too much to check a bag, so people carry everything but the kitchen sink in their carry-on bags. People have forgotten about the liquid scare in England and don't remember or don't know about 3-1-1. TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. Either that or let the liquids go. It's been too long.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I would double-zip-lock bag them in your checked luggage to avoid any leakage.

Submitted by Melissa Newman on

I have the same question as RB, somethings don't add up, and the risk isn't removed at all by throwing a potentially dangerous liquid in the trash right next to where everybody walks by the checkpoint.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I have asked this before but got no answer. The argument for limiting liquids is "we don´t know if it isn´t an explosive". So I´m not allowed to take more than 100 mL deodorant spray.

However, I am allowed to take any size of stick deodorant I want. How do you know that isn´t explosive?

Why limit one whole state of matter, being that explosives happen to exist in all states of matter?

Submitted by Anonymous on

If you don't like the rules don't fly.

Submitted by Anonymous on

" TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. " There are signs all over the airport. People need to read.
" Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?" Bottle "A" has one part of the explosive chemistry. Bottle "B" has another. It's not an explosive until "A" and "B" are combined to make "C." (Chemical reaction.)


Submitted by RB on

Melissa Newman said...
I have the same question as RB, somethings don't add up, and the risk isn't removed at all by throwing a potentially dangerous liquid in the trash right next to where everybody walks by the checkpoint.

August 21, 2013 at 5:39 AM
......................

Lots of things at TSA don't add up.

ID checking, is not a Limited Administrative Search for WEI making it an illegal search.

Playing 20 questions or having to state your name is not a Limited Administrative Search for WEI making it an illegal search.

Gate Gropes prove that TSA Searches are ineffective, or that the Sterile Area is not really secure, yet TSA abuses passengers instead of taking steps to secure the area.

TSA's use of Enhanced Pat Downs is clearly an illegal search since it violates a persons privacy when TSA screeners feel in the crotch and buttocks area of the person being assaulted.

TSA's war on liquids doesn't add up when TSA confiscates items and then tosses them into common trash bins at the checkpoint proving those items are not dangerous in any manner.

TSA has pushed so far over the boundary of the Limited Administrative Search TSA is allowed to conduct that it should make people take a stand against the growing police state that TSA is a part of.

TSA is not a friend of citizens who believe in freedom and our Constitution.

Submitted by Anonymous on
Security Theater

Submitted by Anonymous on

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

Submitted by RB on

Anonymous said...
If you don't like the rules don't fly.

August 21, 2013 at 7:56 AM
...............

This is still America where people have a right to travel by any means they desire including commercial aviation.

It is TSA that is violating the rights of all Americans.

Either you are on the side of TSA and their violations of citizens rights and total disregard of the Constitution or you stand up for your rights as a Citizen of the United States.

TSA is not a friend of citizens who believe in freedom and the United States Constitution.

Submitted by RB on

What happened to the comment that was posted suggesting that it is perfectly safe to dispose of two part explosives, part a and part b, in the same common trash bin?

Is it TSA's belief that doing so is safe?

Submitted by Anonymous on

If the liquid ban was removed or at least relaxed, the TSA would actually get good PR for a change. There is no reason why it can't be relaxed. The TSA has the ability to test liquids. Every item does not have to be tested. If there is suspicion that a liquid is dangerous, then it can be tested and random testing can also be performed.

I don't feel any safer when I see liquids thrown into the trash can next to the checkpoint. I've even seen a TSA screener dump a gray bin full of partially filled bottles into a trash can right next to me as I waited to go through the checkpoint. If these liquids are potentially dangerous, why are they disposed of in such a careless way?

Submitted by RB on

Anonymous said...
If the liquid ban was removed or at least relaxed, the TSA would actually get good PR for a change. There is no reason why it can't be relaxed. The TSA has the ability to test liquids. Every item does not have to be tested. If there is suspicion that a liquid is dangerous, then it can be tested and random testing can also be performed.

I don't feel any safer when I see liquids thrown into the trash can next to the checkpoint. I've even seen a TSA screener dump a gray bin full of partially filled bottles into a trash can right next to me as I waited to go through the checkpoint. If these liquids are potentially dangerous, why are they disposed of in such a careless way?

August 21, 2013 at 12:23 PM
..................

Pretty simple.

TSA knows the LGA's they confiscate are not dangerous

or

TSA cares nothing about your safety.

Which is it TSA?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous said...
The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

August 21, 2013 at 10:50 AM
-------------------------------

What is stopping them from combining smaller quantities of liquids into a larger container after being screened?

Of course this doesn't address the fascination with liquids. Explosives also come in solid form too.

Submitted by Anonymous on

"People have forgotten about the liquid scare in England"

No, I remember. I remember that the plot was purely aspirational, that it was foiled by police and intelligence work, that the plotters did not even have airplane tickets, let alone "liquid explosives."

Submitted by Anonymous on

If you don't like people asking logical questions, don't read the blog.

Submitted by Anonymous on

What everybody seems to be missing here is that this is a government policy, so it doesn't have to make sense, be consistent or be justifiable! As "Anonymous" said, if you don't like the rules, don't fly. I no longer fly. However, when the airlines start going broke again, flying may become mandatory as part of still another government bail-out.

Submitted by Wintermute on

Anonymous said...
"The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones."

Except, as liquids, these can easily be recombined into a larger container, as empty container sizes are not limited. Either the liquids are a threat, or they are not. Even the TSA admits its best scientists took several tries before they could create a viable liquid explosive. Doesn't sound like a viable threat to me, if even their chemists are having a hard time doing it.

Submitted by RB on

RB said...
What happened to the comment that was posted suggesting that it is perfectly safe to dispose of two part explosives, part a and part b, in the same common trash bin?

Is it TSA's belief that doing so is safe?

August 21, 2013 at 11:30 AM
..................

Anonymous said...
" TSA needs to put out more advertising or better signs for all the people that haven't flown in 20 yrs. " There are signs all over the airport. People need to read.
" Why does TSA toss these potential explosives in common trash right at the checpoint?" Bottle "A" has one part of the explosive chemistry. Bottle "B" has another. It's not an explosive until "A" and "B" are combined to make "C." (Chemical reaction.)




August 21, 2013 at 9:29 AM
...............

In my quick reading of the blog I read over the thread I was questioning. It's there and that is my mistake.

What is not my mistake is how anyone can accept that putting both Part A and Part B of a potential or real explosive in the same container makes sense or is the act of anyone concerned abut safety.

I own up to my mistake but am still waiting for TSA to explain how tossing LGA's in common trash bins has any basis in safety.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Anonymous said...

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

I say:

Yeah, but you still can take an empty bottle to put all the content of your tiny liquid bottles into. Therefore, even your (questionable) argument does not hold water (pun intended)....

Submitted by Anonymous on

The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

------

pssst. Maybe you don't know this, but small containers can be combined into a large container. It's by this secret process called "pouring it all into a larger container".

Submitted by Anonymous on

The TSA treats potential explosives (LAGs in bottles) the same methodology as the flying public: careless and unthinking.

Submitted by Susan Richart on

Why did you post my comment, Bob, on this subject? You think I'm giving aid to the enemy? Does the TSA believe that a terrorist or anyone else wanting to create havoc at a checkpoint wouldn't think of what I wrote?

A copy of said post will be sent to the OIG today.

screen shot/DHS OIG

Submitted by Fred Klein on

Anonymous said...
The reason that 1 500 ml bottle is not okay is the way the explosives work. Small containers - even if you have a dozen - will not work the same way as one large container. It's like firecrackers. you can do a hell of a lot of damage with an M80 - but not much with a string of much smaller ones.
They are going for one large concussion, not a string of tiny ones.

And exactly what stops them from pouring all the little bottles into a big one after they get through the checkpoint? The TSA specifically allows large empty bottle to go through, and you could probably just buy a large one after the checkpoint and empty it.

Submitted by Susan Richart on

Errata: I should have written:

Why did you not post my comment......

Submitted by RB on

pssst. Maybe you don't know this, but small containers can be combined into a large container. It's by this secret process called "pouring it all into a larger container".

August 23, 2013 at 9:43 AM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Obviously a TSA employee.

Submitted by Judy on

Thanks - I wondered about this exact question recently.

Submitted by CliffOnTheRoad on

Lisa wrote the blog posting about spray cans and IMO does not deserve continued employment. Follow this; some yahoo (dumb person) writes a newspaper filler stating you should pour hot water into your kitchen sink to removed grease in the pipes. But talk to a plumber and U learn that the water cools and the fat redeposits further down the line, especially on cast iron. Hence, BAD ADVICE.

The FAA does not permit transportation of what Lisa says is OK.

Loved the comments of Security Threater and ... government policy, so it doesn't have to make sense

Submitted by GSOLTSO on

CliffOnTheRoad sez - "The FAA does not permit transportation of what Lisa says is OK."

Lisa covered the acceptable toiletry aerosols and indicated the sizes allowed in carry on baggage, as well as the ones not allowed in carry on baggage. The link included in the thread will give you a more complete break down of the carry on LAG regulations. To clarify, toiletry aerosols 3.4 oz or less are acceptable in carry on baggage (to include but not limited to - hair sprays, perfumes/body sprays/colognes, and suntan lotions).

West
TSA Blog Team

Submitted by RB on

So 3.4 ounces of LGA's are safe. What makes 3.5 ozs dangerous and what scientific evidence does TSA have to support this restriction?

Submitted by Anonymous on

may a passenger take in carry-on baggage, two 750 ml hair spray aerosol ?

Submitted by Anonymous on

Lol..."see you next Tuesday"

Submitted by Znorty@notrashc... on

Just follow the 3-1-1 Liquids Rule otherwise your stuff will be dropped into a trash can by yourself or the security guy.

Submitted by Bill Butler on

If a TSA checkpoint trashcan containing flamable liquids catches fire, all you have to do is cover the container and the fire is extinguished in seconds, because of the lack of oxygen.
If a lunatic terrorist dumps that liquid on a passenger, a crew member, or on some flammable aircraft interior parts, the fire could cause the airplane crash, killing hundreds of people. It only takes a minute or two for a cabin fire to get hot enough, or consume so much oxygen, that everyone on the plane dies. If the heat and smoke doesn't kill everyone, the crash will.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I look at it like this. If you can't get a bottle of water on a plane you can't get a bomb on a plane. If you can't get a small knife on a plane you can't get a big knife on a plane. If you have nothing to hide then why does it bother you if they look and do you want to be sitting on a plane with a bunch of people who can bring anything they want on with them? How bout that guy with the hammer? or the guy with the set of throwing stars, or the guy with the bottles of clorox and amonia? We are lucky they don't start fining us for paying so little attention to the rules. The loss of a can of hairspray is nothing next to the $50.00 or $100.00 fine they could have been handing out for ignoring the rules! If they ever change the rules I'm not sure I would ever get on a plane again. I have never met a TSA officer who wasn't trying to get me through his security line as fast as he could. I thank each and every one of them for having the nerve to come to work each day knowing that today might be the day he could find the bomb he has been looking for.

Submitted by Anonymous on

TSA is a joke

Submitted by Anonymous on

US is the only country I have traveled with such schizophrenic and psychotic rules, not European nor Asian country do...plane simple there is LESS & LESS LIBERTY for ALL, just a waste of money AMERICAN people don't have in this going-down-the-toilet economy.

Submitted by Unknown on

Hello!!! Does no one remember 9/11? The rules are for our safety and I, for one, have no problem following the rules if it means I won't get blown up! If you don't like it, go live in one of those European or Asian countries you referenced. There's a reason we have such an immigration problem you know. That's because everyone knows living in America can be so much better than some of the countries you reference to.

Submitted by Anonymous on

While throwing liquids that may be explosive into the trash at the gates may do some damage nearby, I believe the casualties would be far less than on a plane. Maybe 100 casualties, at most, around the gates. Everyone aboard, possibly 200 - 400 passengers on a long flight in a jumbo jet, could be killed by an in-flight explosion.

Submitted by Lace A Narrator on

To the comments saying that the TSA violates our rights, here's the deal: We as Americans don't have a "right" to fly unless you own your own airplane and pilot's license. We exchange goods (money) for services (flying) by entering into a social contract. We agree by paying for a flight and expecting to board it to all the airline policies. You don't have to fly. Sure it's a bit of a monopoly... but it's not inherently bad.

Submitted by Fnbrowning on

Lace A. Narrator confuses the agreement for services between the air carrier and the traveler with the violation of rights a& privacy forced on the airlines and travelers by the TSA.

The American Citizen does not have a "right to fly" with a private airplane, in fact it is a very tightly regulated activity.

Actually, the fedgov controls the air, (FAA, TSA) the riverways, (Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers) the railways (Amtrack regs on railroad travel) and the highways.
So, if you accept Lace A. Narrator's flawed premise on flying, you also have to apply his premise to every type of travel, and the citizen can go nowhere.
No Lance, we need to take our rights back from the over-reaching fedgov.

Submitted by Anonymous on

Science.

Submitted by Anonymous on

The FBI tested the TSA and we're able to get 90 % of the contraband they brought through the checkpoints. While they are busy performing G security theatre for you guys, confiscating shampoos, FBI agents brought weapons et al, unchecked. So sorry but what is keeping you safe is not TSA, I instead it is the intelligence and police agencies. If a terrorist makes it to an American an airport, it will likely be too late.

Submitted by Unknown on

I, for one, feel much much better and safer traveling with these strict rules. Don't like them, don't fly, but they are meant to keep everyone SAFE.

Submitted by Unknown on

I, for one, feel much much better and safer traveling with these strict rules. Don't like them, don't fly, but they are meant to keep everyone SAFE.

Submitted by Jay on

I accidentally took my roommate's passport instead of mine. I didn't look at it and went through TSA screening with his passport and my boarding pass all the way to the gate before the United agent noticed it wasn't me (or my name) on the passport. I missed my flight, haha. Not sure who's dumber, me or TSA.

Submitted by Anonymous on

I, for one, am sick of 911 being used as a fear based motivator for policies that clearly do not make us safer.

I would love for the tsa to publish the statistics depicting how effective these policies are... How many explosive liquids have ever between found?

To my knowledge, the answer is 0.

Submitted by Friend Of Flying on

TSA Rules are for our safety. If for some reason you are overly sensitive to rules and or possibly being properly searched then you should not be boarding a plane. I rather be properly searched if necessary and remain safe on my flight. If for some reason you may feel you are being groped during a search, well than that is too bad-don't fly. Your petty complaints hold no merit.

Submitted by Sandee on

I applaud the effort of TSA keeping me safe on my flight. I understand everyone has rights, but I would rather feel safe knowing everyone was screened and searched. Yes, if TSA lightened the restrictions, All the complainers would be so much happier until we were blown up, and then The people that are complaining about having to be searched and scaned would definitely sue the airlines

Pages