Originally Posted by
Boggie Dog
I fail to see how anyone can claim that the TSA website says nitro pills are permitted.
What am I missing here?
Shift the focus to what the real grounds for denial were.
NITRO
pills, not
nitro PILLS.
Note the same confusion regarding Clearcare contact solution. The problem is not with contact solutions (liquids) being handled as medical substances. The problem is with one specific ingredient in this particular brand of solution.
Here's an answer (very similar to the situation with nitro pills) from TSA's own Blog. Perhaps <deleted> even knows the author.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/05/tsa-2010...avel-tips.html
It will be permitted, except when a liquid (in this case "Clear Care") alarms the test for explosives on multiple tests, it will not be allowed past the checkpoint.
If I have a 4 ounce bottle of "Clear Care" brand contact lens solution will it be cleared at screening? What if the same "Clear Care" contact lens solution is only 3 ounces?”
The four ounce bottle will receive additional screening in order to clear screening. Will it make it through? That question is a case by case that depends on test results, and a slue of other factors that can be present at the checkpoint.
If the bottle is under or is 3.4 ounces, the bottle receives x-ray screening, and is still subject to additional screening. For the average passenger, x-ray screening will be the norm. Again, it is a case by case.
and from the same thread:
I had a tiny bottle of Clear Care contact solution confiscated at JAX today. I've flown with various sizes of Clear Care at least 15 times per year over the past 4 years, and this is the first time I've had a problem. When I asked why, now, it was suddenly not allowed through security, the agent said "because it tested positive for peroxide." Well, that's because it IS peroxide. Since when is that not OK? Now I never know what they're going to suddenly decide is not OK.
<deleted>, read the above from your own agency's blog. Do you see the problem? A certain 'TSM/<deleted>' was very active (and unprofessionally testy, IMHO) on that thread.
My pills never alarmed. They are dispensed in a tiny glass bottle inside a regular pill bottle (big enough to hold the prescription label). There were no negative swab tests, but the inside bottle wasn't tested. It was identified and confiscated because the external label clearly identified the contents.
(bolding mine)
Note that the 'average' pax will still get prohibited Clearcare through the checkpoint IF it is small enough to fit in the baggie and IF a screener doesn't happen to notice the label and demand the secondary test that will result in confiscation. This is exactly what happened with my nitro pills.
Something else interesting. I seem to recall someone denying that there are SSI documents detailing specific information that is not available to the pax - specifically, the exact limitations (weight, length) used to decide whether or not a walking cane will be allowed. There's an interesting exchange on this blog post where a current TSO slaps a former TSO down because the former TSO's inside information is out-of-date.
A 'Former TSO' posted about the LGA restrictions applying to fish.
Actually "Former TSO" you are wrong. According to current policy a fish swimming in water is proof that the liquid is able to travel through regardless of size. (Though I guess a couple gallons might be an issue!)
This is explained on our CP FAQ site which only Current TSOs have access to. Guess "Former" TSOs shouldn't comment on "current" policy.
Interesting that there's an SSI CP FAQ website that is presumably not only more informative but also more current than the website info available to pax. I wonder if this is where the DEN rules on weight/length/etc. on medically necessary canes is.
OT: if the rules for LGA quantities can be bent because someone decided that a clear liquid with live fish swimming in it is OK in greater than 3.4 ounces, then why would 'a couple gallons' be an issue? Once again, it's clear that either there's SSI information on the CP FAQ limiting the amount of acceptable water with fish, or it's entirely up to the TSO to make the call 'just because'.
Kind of like saying that even if an LGA passes a test, there are a 'slue of other factors at the checkpoint' that might result in its confiscation. I assume 'slue of other factors' is a fancy way of saying if the screener has a chip on his shoulder or wants the item, it will still get confiscated, medical or not.