Any flammable powder. A powder that won't burn has no possible explosive mixing ratio.

If the drug companies had called them "Gonzo" pills, everything would be OK. Heck, if I needed them, I would just use a different pill bottle - maybe a Viagra bottle or something.

No.

Then I really would be in trouble. I'd be guilty of 'artful concealment' as well as having a prohibited substance.

Unfortunately, the information you've posted really doesn't back up the answer. The statement (a) doesn't make any explicit reference to nitro pills, and (b) includes the usual "the decision of the TSA is final" disclaimer which renders any previous assurances moot.

If TSA is serious about reassuring passengers about their ability to carry medications, they need to issue better statements than this one. Saying "it's allowed, except when it isn't" provides no actionable information.

That is terrifying. I recently was on a trip with my grandfather, and he had to use his nitroglycerine pills. We would have had to call an ambulance for a trip to the hospital in a foreign country if he didn't have them.

It's possible that the only reason they weren't seized was because he carries them in an unlabled vial. :confused:

I think the correct term is combustible powder, not flammable. The powder does not have to be one that is easy to burn or ignite, just one that is burn-able.

My wife's nitro pills are actually very small spherical capsules. What would happen if a passenger, having their nitro pills taken by TSA, suffered a heart attack on a TATL or TPAC flight and died? I guess TSA would say they were sorry, but protecting us from milligrams of nitroglycerin is more important than a single person's life.

Or, blame the passenger for choosing to take the flight without the pills.

The size of the pills is not the issue. There is zero tolerance for some substances.

If you don't get your bag searched by a label-reading TSO, you're OK. If you're very careful to clean the bottle after taking a pill so that you don't accidentally contaminate yourself and test positive, you're OK.

In the statistically unlikely scenario that you don't have the pills and need them (doesn't have to be on a flight, could be on the way to the airport stuck in traffic, could be on a transcon, could be during a long layover or IRROPS) and you die, no doctor is going to go on record and say that the pills absolutely would have made a difference.

I understand what you are saying - that disclaimer is included in all of the items listed in the system (at least that I have seen), ostensibly to prevent someone from being able to game the system.

I have posted the information that I have on a subject I have seen being questioned - which is all I can give you. I just wanted to let some of those asking the questions know that the items in question (nitro pills) are allowed based on the prohibited/allowed items list officially. Anything else will have to come from further up the food chain.

I have just now e-mailed all my congresspeople requesting that they demand that the TSA come forth with a statement that nitroglycerin pills are allowed on all flights at all times and are not subject to "discretion" on the part of an individual screener.

Later this morning, I will call each of their offices.

I would also suggest that calls be made to the office of Mike McCaul, Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, 202-225-2401, expressing the same concern.

Also, hit their Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, any and all social media.

The disclaimer allows the TSA to game the system.

:td:

Except there is no such thing as an "allowed items list".

Oh, don't get me wrong. I know very well that TSA publishes something called an "allowed items list". But the list contains the very prominent disclaimer that anything on the "allowed" list might be disallowed at the discretion of the TSA.

So, according to TSA, there are three types of items that appear on a checkpoint:

• Items on the "prohibited" list, which are always prohibited.
• Items on the "allowed" list, which are allowed, except when they're prohibited --- and there's no way for a passenger to know ahead of time whether their "allowed" item will be allowed or prohibited.
• Items on neither list, which could be either allowed or prohibited, with no way for a passenger to know ahead of time.

Seriously ... TSA creates tons of problems for itself by publishing a list of "allowed" items and then repeatedly prohibiting passengers from carrying those items through a checkpoint. TSA should publish a list of prohibited items, and then simply say "everything else is subject to the arbitrary whim professional judgment of the TSOs performing your screening". Such a statement is a far more accurate description of what actually happens at a checkpoint today --- at least from the perspective of the general public.

I have a friend who uses Clear contact lens solution. She buys a cheap store brand lens solution, empties the bottle, sterilizes it and then transfers the Clear solution to the store-brand container, which is in her baggie. She flies on a very regular basis and has never had her solution in the store-brand container confiscated.

For what it's worth, here's an interesting note:

Has the TSA changed their rules regarding Clear Care? Or does the "meets TSA requirements" refer to the size of the bottle, not the contents?

http://www.drugstore.com/clear-care-...4?catid=328028

Which is utterly worthless.

So ask up the food chain, since you're one of your agency's supposed public relations voices.

With all due respect, I think you are 180 degrees off on the rationale for the disclaimer. It was included specifically to allow people to "game the system." The disclaimer is there to enable TSA screeners to ignore any rule, discard common sense and require forfeiture of any object for any reason or no reason at all.

I understand that you do not make the rules and are only stating them, but if you really want to clarify the rules you would say the following:That is the reality. If I am wrong please show me where a passenger has any enforceable recourse against an inappropriate banning of an item.