That’s about agriculture, not explosions.
Is anyone else puzzled that beverages bought after the security screening are okay in your checked luggage? Don’t you have to check your luggage before you go through security?
They are starting to do more “checking at the gate” when there is too much carry-on baggage to fit in the overheads/under seats. That may be where this comes in.
Controvert, I LOL’d. The extremes of either side of this debate don’t make any sense. How fast does anyone think the line would move if they replaced all those rules with “Each TSA agent will exercise his or her professional judgment in screening luggage and negotiate with each passenger about the appropriate disposition of any controversial items?”
What Harriet the Spry said. Gate-checking is becoming more common these days. It will get worse, too, now that some airlines are charging for checked bags. Many folks will try to avoid checking anything at all, resulting in an overload of cabin bags.
They have no way of verifying where a piece of fruit came from, and many countries are keen to protect their farms against crop diseases and the like. Rather than trying to verify exactly where your orange or pear came from, they just ban the lot of them.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the policy, but isn’t it possible you don’t either? What if they want it ziploc’d so they can easily press into it to check if something is embedded? Hard to do that in the package. Another advantage is a ziploc is easily opened and sniffed, but you’d probably whine about them opening your applesauce.
But yours is unopened! So what? Trivially easy to syringe out the contents and inject another substance, then close up the hole so it appears unopened. Once you establish that applesauce packs are off-limits to search, they become the best way to smuggle contraband.
Similarly, once you establish old ladies as unreasonable search suspects, guess who gets recruited to be a suicide bomber? Can’t search Al Gore? The next bomber turns out to be a celebrity impersonator. That’s why you have to be able to randomly search anyone. (or, alternatively, they should search no one)
On the aforementioned flight this past Monday, I actually saw someone required to check an oversized carry-on before they were allowed to board the plane. This is the first time I’ve seen this in years; they are usually allowed to bring it on and try to cram it into the overhead, and only when that doesn’t work does the flight attendant suggest that it be checked.
They want it in a zipper sealed container to limit the maximum quantity you can have. You can have any number of 3 ounce or less (actually, I think it’s 3.4 ounces or 100 milliliters) containers that will fit into a one quart (actually 1.06 quart or 1 liter) bag. It’s not to press into, and the individual containers don’t need to be sealed.
This whole idiotic thing started because some would be terrorists were talking about synthesizing TATP, or triacetone triperoxide in an airplane restroom. I have a degree in chemistry, and I figure it would take no less than twelve hours in a fully equipped laboratory with carefully controlled temperatures and ice baths to generate a useful amount of TATP without causing a low grade decomposition that would not be able to bring down a plane. You can not make TATP in an airline bathroom.
edited to remove material unsuited for this forum
Yes, I acknowledge that possibility.
Well, since the package was a clear plastic tub with a factory-sealed piece of foil across the top (like the ones pictured here), I doubt if a thin sheet of plastic would have made any difference.
Well, yes. But there is no difference between sniffing a sealed container in a ziploc bag and the same sealed container in the open air.
It would be even easier to put a similar amount of contraband into a hollowed-out book or that sandwich that wasn’t even inspected.
I think there are a number of false premises here:
- That suicide bombers are likely to be among the passengers (as opposed to crew, cleaners, TSA personnel, etc.)
- That suicide bombers are endlessly sneaky and creative with carry-on contraband, but cannot imagine other ways to combat aircraft.
- That explosions and obvious weapons are the only tactics suicide bombers will use.
Frankly, I think a car bomb à la Iraq would be more effective terrorism than taking down an airplane, and I am grateful this tactic has not been attempted, because I can’t see how you’d prevent it. But I think I’m veering into GD territory, or at least hijacking the thread, so I’ll go away and eat my applesauce in peace. If a thread is opened elsewhere let me know and I’ll respond there.
I got caught once with a contraband apple that I forgot I put into my briefcase. It was a fair cop, though, and the one who caught me was a cute little beagle. Yes, in California we have fruit-sniffing dogs. He even gave me an autographed postcard with his picture on it.
What I find interesting is that, according to the list, I can possibly carry on a fifth of whiskey to sustain me on my flight, but not a bottle of water.
There have been attempts to bring down an aircraft via liquid brought on-board, so it is understandable why they are especially concerned with liquids. There isn’t enough space in your hollowed-out book or the sandwich to hide a sufficient quantity of the contraband liquid. However, if your sandwich could somehow jeopardize the safety of the aircraft, then they should have thrown it out.
I don’t remember this happening. Can you give some details about it?
That’s not true. You can bring aboard as many 3.4 ounce bottles of either whisky or water as will fit into a one liter zipper sealed plastic bag.
Just last Monday I had a terrible inconvenience as the family in front of me had a one gallon container filled with all the lotions, unguents, salves, gels, etc. that four females need for a week long trip. It was mother, grandmother, and two daughters. They had to obtain four one quart bags and spend five minutes dividing the load so that each bag would be less than one quart total. “Don’t worry about it.” the TSA guy says, “You can put it back in one bag when you get through security.” The terrorists have already won.
Sure thing. I googled “airline liquid restrictions” and got this:
“The liquid restriction was introduced early 2007 after an attempt to burn down a plane using high concentration alcohol in 2 l bottles.”
We were talking about liquid restrictions in the US, which were promulgated in their current form August 13, 2006. Cite.
Remarkably prescient of Secretary Chertoff.
To the OP:
When you say you’re buying lunch “between flights”, do you mean in the airport? Because if you’re buying food while changing planes, you won’t have to worry about taking it through through security (For a domestic flight, anyway).
It does seem that “gels for passengers with a disability or medical condition” are exempted, as are items “used to augment the body for medical or cosmetic reasons”… so if the gel inserts are because of a medical condition with your feet then they would be permitted.
Oddly enough, “Gel-filled bras may be worn through security screening and aboard aircraft”, and since gel bra inserts are apparently OK, whether for “medical or cosmetic reasons” it would seem that while gel-bomb shoes *are * a security concern there is no similar worry about gel-bomb bras. :rolleyes: