astonmartinv8

Passing through Port Macquarie today, my wife and I were surprised to have to throw away my Adidas anti-perspirant. (A new one at that).

Apparently, because it did not have a locking actuator. We were told the can needs to have a cap or locking actuator. The one I use has an actuator but it does not lock - you have to specifically press it quite hard to make spray though. In all the time I have one of these in checked baggage it has never sprayed (hundreds of flights).

I have been happily using the same type of anti-perspirant in carry on and passing it through security many many times. Through Sydney and Perth domestic twice in the last week.

Either the guy in Port Macquarie was very good at what he did (and I am in the wrong) or he made me throw away a perfectly good aerosol.

Anyone know the correct answer? The Qantas and government website is unclear.

Thanks....

og

I don't have access to "the rules" - whatever they are, but you never win an argument with security even if you are right. I've tried and lost items and time. Some take absolute joy in saying "got ya" over something that a bad guy wouldn't even consider effective at doing harm.

Dave Noble

The requirement that the aerosol have a lid or that the spray is otherwise protected ( e.g. twists down ) is something that I have come across numerous times in Australia, so I do not think that the person was making it up

tuapekastar

My recollection (which may or may not be accurate, but I think it is) is that it can be traced back to a Virgin Blue (yes, pre-VA) flight from I think OOL-SYD where an aerosol can (likely deodorant) 'leaked' somehow during flight spreading an alarming odour (goodness knows what brand it was ) through the cabin. A subsequent crackdown on sealing of aerosols followed which led to what we have today.

ConradS

Hope you had a good stay in Port. Shame about the deodorant but I see them checking the locking quite regularly there. My experience is they are no more zealous than other small Australian airports.

justin_krusty

I've run into this one before too. I had it confiscated at the VA SYD premium entry when I was transferring off a LAX-SYD. I made the comment that I'd just been travelling all over the security-crazy US with no problems so it was amusing to get pinged for it when back home - this resulted in a 5 minute lecture how I was no longer in the US and my bag being pulled apart for a thorough search.

In NZ you don't need to pull your aerosols out of your bag at all.

Firemansam

I have twice seen aerosol's confiscated at security.
I also lost an argument with a security (int'l departure) bloke in Adelaide with my toothpaste that was clearly marked 92ml/110gm because it was over the "100" mark, no matter how much i argued that all known published rules referred to "100 milliliters" or smaller. Arguing with security is akin to banging ones head against a brick wall with that lot.

astonmartinv8

Thanks everyone, seems like I was arguing with a brick wall, not to worry.

Dave Noble

If the person was correct , which I think he is, his sticking to his stance seems like he was just doing his duty - a brick wall is how he should be in that case

vbroucek

+1

og

Which is right so long as the security person is not interpreting the rules in a funny way - ie making a determination at odds with everyone else. For example I lost a pair of scissors at TPE that were within regulation description ( under the length nominated and had rounded ends ). They had been individually checked by Oz security and many TSA places. The guy in TPE wouldn't let then through because he said "scissors must have round edges" - and showed me a definition card in Chinese with a poorly translated English version which specified "rounded edges" ( rather than "rounded ends" ). Now to most people, rounded edged scissors are useless and are more like a pair of chopsticks He brought a supervisor into the discussion and the Supervisor just agreed with the staffer. Made no sense to me - I just walked away before the guys with the big guns were called.